Just recently, I received an intriguing post on my Facebook wall from a friend, someone I know and trust. The post contained the following message:

Has anyone messaged you to let you know your face book pictre is all over {BLOCKED}.com
To be honest, even the spelling and grammar sounded like my friend, but I’m fairly [...]

A new round of PDF exploits are being pushed by websites pretending to be the US Federal Reserve. Several spammed email messages were intercepted starting last week advertising these fake Federal Reserve pages.

Figure 1. Sample email message.
This spam run is still continuing as of this writing, and it is now advertising more bogus sites. So [...]

Trojan-Spy.Win32.Banker.aiw is not a real trojan but it indicates serious problems. This threat is reported by fake security tools. Do not trust programs that supposedly detect Trojan-Spy.Win32.Banker.aiw trojan and offer removing it for a certain price. This trojan can not be deleted because it simply doesn’t exist.

Trojan-Spy.Win32.Banker.aiw is just a name that appears of fabricated …

Trojan.Konov is dangerous threat designed to affect cell phones. It can be transferred to a computer and then infect other mobile devices plugged on the compromised machine. The trojan may also infect cell phones via Bluetooth or it can be downloaded from the web.

Konov trojan is disguised as Java Midlet application. This type of programs …

Av-antivir-scanner-3.net is dangerous browser hijacker. It keeps redirecting web browser to av-antivir-scanner-3.net. This may result further malware infections as av-antivir-scanner-3.net is able to install additional malwares. However, the main purpose of both the website and the browser hijacker is not spreading the infections. They both work hard to make people give their money away.

Av-antivir-scanner-3.net loads …

Hallmark.gif[1].exe is another trojan disguised as electronic card in order to attract people and make them install the malware voluntarily. Hallmark.gif[1].exe trojan comes with spam email that invites potential victim to visit a website and check an e-card sent by someone. Clicking the link provided on the spam email triggers the download of the trojan.

Opening …

StartedWebsite.com browser hijacker redirects its victims to startedwebsite.com/security/xp and startedwebsite.com/security/vista. Startedwebsite.com website is part of a scam that sells rogue security tools. Do not trust startedwebsite.com and do not purchase programs featured on this website!

StartedWebsite.com hijacker is dangerous because it leads users into malicious website. Startedwebsite.com may install other malwares on visitor’s computer. But the …

Many of you are likely frequent readers of Matousec Transparent Security Lab’s white papers and tests, including the Firewall Challenge. The Firewall Challenge is intended to show firewalls’ and security suites’ capabilities in resisting “leaktests” (tests that simulate data leakage) and other lesser-known ways of bypassing protection.

As can be seen from the list of solutions tested, both standalone firewalls and security suites are submitted for this report. One of those security suites is Kaspersky Internet Security 2009, which holds 7th place in the ratings with a score of 87% across 73 tests, a “very good” protection level, and a complexity level of “10+”.

Agnitum’s products have traditionally enjoyed well-earned leadership in these tests for several years. Currently Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 holds 1st place with 99% (the build tested was an initial one, released July 1, 2008), “excellent” protection and complexity level “10” (minor errors revealed by the test were fixed in subsequent builds, which enables us to claim a 100% result on all suggested levels if the product were retested in its current condition).

So here is our question. Why did a product with a lower total score receive a higher complexity level– 10+? The answer is actually quite simple. To reach a higher level, a product must get no less than 50% at the current level. The products that managed to pass two rather esoteric tests at the last – 10th level – received a 10+ mark according to this criterion. However, this showing doesn’t have a crucial impact on the final results, as a product can marginally pass all previous levels with just 50% and still show a higher result on the last level.

As for Outpost solutions, it’s no secret that Agnitum offers an integrated solution as well: Outpost Security Suite Pro, based on the standalone Outpost Firewall Pro and incorporating the same arsenal of proactive measures. As a suite, Outpost Security Suite Pro also includes antivirus and antispam capabilities, but these tools don’t play any significant role in the Matousec tests, nor do they interfere with the test procedures (even in the performance segment).

Now, let’s take a look at this article (one of many published world-wide on the Internet). Now take another look at a new so-called “test leader” - Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 (the 7th in the overall rating, as noted above)! Surprised? It’s worth noting that Kaspersky Lab doesn’t take Outpost’s results into account because the most recent build of Agnitum’s security suite “hasn’t been tested by Matousec” and, therefore does not even merit a mention as far as Kapersky is concerned.

However, both Agnitum’s products are so close in their proactive protection and anti-leak capabilities that it seems to us rather strange to separate their achievements and give the winner’s crown to another vendor’s product – a security suite! – in the Firewall Challenge.
We’re confident that those who are interested in this topic are smart enough to read between the lines and make their own independent analysis of the test results. Here’s the link once again: http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php.

While we fully support Kaspersky’s efforts to promote the Matousec tests as a reliable source of information about the robustness of security products, we believe that the tests and their results should be weighted to reflect accurately the likelihood of users encountering each situation in the real world.

Below is the data derived from the Matousec tests (courtesy of Kaspersky Lab which created the initial chart, to which we have added the Outpost results).

By the way, Outpost demonstrated a 100% result on all levels but two while Kaspersky Internet Security scored 100% just on 4 levels out of 10. We leave you to draw your own conclusions …

Vitaly Yanko
Director of Marketing and Sales, Agnitum