Do you want Russian media to write about your startup product? So fear your desires!
Good day to all!
If you really want to write about the product of your startup in the Russian media, fear your desires. For the result can be completely unpredictable because of the deepest crisis of professionalism in them. However, not to be unfounded ...
In the process of my private correspondence with Sergey Vilyanov, editor of Computerra Online , he suggested writing about my product on the Terra website. I agreed and asked to write not about the HIPS-version of DefenseWall, but about its new, completely new Personal Firewall edition, which is currently in beta. In a letter to Sergey he briefly described the main advantages of my program compared to competitors and began to wait for Andrei Krupin to contact me to discuss incomprehensible moments in the functioning of the program and discuss the article. Instead, Andrew quickly writes an article (literally in a week) and puts Computerra on the site. Without tears to read this opus is impossible. Let's take a closer look at this “creation”.
')
1. The “electronic news” mentioned there is my private correspondence with Sergey Vilyanov and I don’t remember asking me for permission to publish it.
2. "And everything would be fine, but the HIPS module automatically enters the" black "list of applications familiar to the user and disrupts their normal operation by blocking the saving of settings and updating products . " There is no “black list” in the program, but there is only a list of applications placed in the untrusted zone because they are the “gateway” for the infection to reach users' computers. DefenseWall does not violate, at the same time, their normal operation, all settings are saved normally except for those critical to security. All product updates can only occur from a trusted zone, because otherwise malicious applications will also be able to “update” them. But you will hardly like it already ...
3. “What caused Internet Explorer, Outlook, Opera, Mozilla, FireFox, ICQ, Google Talk, The Bat! and dozens of other programs . ” The fact that it is through them that computers of users are infected. Or maybe recall how many Microsoft has closed the holes in Internet Explorer over the past year? And I also have “guilty” flash drives, for some reason not mentioned at all in the article.
4. “And the very idea of ​​introducing the function of launching applications in a protected environment into a network filter is extremely doubtful . ” Actually, this is the essence of DefenseWall's innovative approach to protect the vulnerable "trusted" zone of the sandbox with the help of fully automated protection against external connections that block "listening" ports created by trusted processes. Behind this, there is no need to configure ports (for eMule or uTorrent, for example), as well as in the “learning mode”. That is, DefenseWall Personal; Firewall is not a network filter with bolted HIPS, but a sandbox HIPS (sandbox) with a network filter to protect against unauthorized incoming and outgoing connections.
5. "In our opinion, headache from it is more than practical sense . " Sorry, "our" is whose specifically? Here's a look, for example, of the professional security portal Anti-Malware, DefenseWall is the only application that showed an absolute, 100% result in the zero-day threat protection test (0-day). Here you are, grandmother, and the “dubious benefit” of running applications in a protected environment. But Andrey is also a professional security tester, much more professional than AV-Comparatives and Anti-Malware (more on this below).
6. “It has five tabs, but only one of them is reserved for storing a few firewall settings. If other similar tools can boast of screens that demonstrate the current network connections in the system, the amount of traffic transferred, the ports involved and other information, then DefenseWall Personal Firewall has nothing but the listing of applications with access rules to the Network. ” Well, yes, why more? The program is intended for a “simple” user, for whom all these “screens” with data are meaningless garbage. Should I repeat the mistakes of competitors only because Andrei finds this “boring”? And then, “similar tools” are not yet observed - DefenseWall is the world's first personal firewall sandbox. Well, or sandbox-personal firewall, as you like.
7. “According to Ilya Rabinovich, Matousec’s professional tests, which determine various firewall indicators, including their reliability, the ability to block Trojan modules, and the ability to withstand the most difficult ways of inserting and hiding malicious code, DW PF scores the maximum number of points and successfully passes through a multi-level rating system . " Well, yes, exactly. But to download these tests (there are now 148, by the way!) And to check Andrei was weak. For we have the following "pearl":
8. "but in the reports of Matousec, available to anyone, we did not find any mention of DefenseWall Personal Firewall . " Of course, he's not there! Just open the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the “Proactive Security Challenge” section to understand that no beta tests are accepted, and there are no other versions of the Personal Firewall yet!
9. "One of the readers of the anti-virus portal Virusinfo.info caught praised the firewall in the failure of several tests . " The only question is what exactly. We follow the link and read: the Comodo Buffer Overflow test failed on the buffer overflow (and DefenseWall does not protect against this type of attack), PCFlank failed (because it was launched from the trusted zone, as it was found out later, from the untrusted the test is passed to ") And do not hide (" stealth ") ports. Well, yes, the ports are not hiding, for tell me, what does this have to do with security in principle and the protection of the trusted zone of the sandbox in particular?
10. "And the forum member on the Anti-malware.ru website was able to face a situation where a malicious application disrupted the components of the firewall . " This is generally Pearl with a capital letter, because the person obviously worked not with the Personal Firewall, but with HIPS. Yes, and I drove this Virut.56 - nothing dangerous, the sandbox worked at 100%. But why will Andrew bother himself with tests, it is better to bring the posts from the forums a month ago as an irrefutable proof!
11. "We did not fail to use diagnostic tools and, running the Atelier Web Firewall Tester utility, found that in terms of the protection level of DW PF, it is not inferior to the built-in Windows firewall . " The most interesting statement in this opus, because it is the only verifiable direct natural science experiment. So, we go to the site, download “Atelier Web Firewall Tester” (a rather poor test compared to Matousec, by the way) with an untrusted browser, unpack and run the installer (it is immediately obvious that DefenseWall inherited the “untrusted” attribute). After installation, run the test and easily type the maximum 10 points in it. Obviously, we are doing everything wrong, and only Andrei Krupin has the right to the “correct” result.
It is a pity to see such articles on Komputerra website written by staff journalists. In my eyes, Terra fell below the level of the sewer. I asked to remove the material, but no one did anything. Sorry, but I have to defend my honor and the honor of my product, they have left me no choice.
Do you still want your innovative product to be spat upon in the semi-professional Russian media? In my opinion, it’s better to immediately focus on the West and the press is more professional there (I have never met such pitiable misunderstanding of innovative products, and most importantly, persistent persistence in one’s own ignorance and complete unwillingness to understand), and the public is more responsive to everything new.
PS I myself wrote to the paper Computerra in 2007. And therefore more doubly painful.
If you really want to write about the product of your startup in the Russian media, fear your desires. For the result can be completely unpredictable because of the deepest crisis of professionalism in them. However, not to be unfounded ...
In the process of my private correspondence with Sergey Vilyanov, editor of Computerra Online , he suggested writing about my product on the Terra website. I agreed and asked to write not about the HIPS-version of DefenseWall, but about its new, completely new Personal Firewall edition, which is currently in beta. In a letter to Sergey he briefly described the main advantages of my program compared to competitors and began to wait for Andrei Krupin to contact me to discuss incomprehensible moments in the functioning of the program and discuss the article. Instead, Andrew quickly writes an article (literally in a week) and puts Computerra on the site. Without tears to read this opus is impossible. Let's take a closer look at this “creation”.
')
1. The “electronic news” mentioned there is my private correspondence with Sergey Vilyanov and I don’t remember asking me for permission to publish it.
2. "And everything would be fine, but the HIPS module automatically enters the" black "list of applications familiar to the user and disrupts their normal operation by blocking the saving of settings and updating products . " There is no “black list” in the program, but there is only a list of applications placed in the untrusted zone because they are the “gateway” for the infection to reach users' computers. DefenseWall does not violate, at the same time, their normal operation, all settings are saved normally except for those critical to security. All product updates can only occur from a trusted zone, because otherwise malicious applications will also be able to “update” them. But you will hardly like it already ...
3. “What caused Internet Explorer, Outlook, Opera, Mozilla, FireFox, ICQ, Google Talk, The Bat! and dozens of other programs . ” The fact that it is through them that computers of users are infected. Or maybe recall how many Microsoft has closed the holes in Internet Explorer over the past year? And I also have “guilty” flash drives, for some reason not mentioned at all in the article.
4. “And the very idea of ​​introducing the function of launching applications in a protected environment into a network filter is extremely doubtful . ” Actually, this is the essence of DefenseWall's innovative approach to protect the vulnerable "trusted" zone of the sandbox with the help of fully automated protection against external connections that block "listening" ports created by trusted processes. Behind this, there is no need to configure ports (for eMule or uTorrent, for example), as well as in the “learning mode”. That is, DefenseWall Personal; Firewall is not a network filter with bolted HIPS, but a sandbox HIPS (sandbox) with a network filter to protect against unauthorized incoming and outgoing connections.
5. "In our opinion, headache from it is more than practical sense . " Sorry, "our" is whose specifically? Here's a look, for example, of the professional security portal Anti-Malware, DefenseWall is the only application that showed an absolute, 100% result in the zero-day threat protection test (0-day). Here you are, grandmother, and the “dubious benefit” of running applications in a protected environment. But Andrey is also a professional security tester, much more professional than AV-Comparatives and Anti-Malware (more on this below).
6. “It has five tabs, but only one of them is reserved for storing a few firewall settings. If other similar tools can boast of screens that demonstrate the current network connections in the system, the amount of traffic transferred, the ports involved and other information, then DefenseWall Personal Firewall has nothing but the listing of applications with access rules to the Network. ” Well, yes, why more? The program is intended for a “simple” user, for whom all these “screens” with data are meaningless garbage. Should I repeat the mistakes of competitors only because Andrei finds this “boring”? And then, “similar tools” are not yet observed - DefenseWall is the world's first personal firewall sandbox. Well, or sandbox-personal firewall, as you like.
7. “According to Ilya Rabinovich, Matousec’s professional tests, which determine various firewall indicators, including their reliability, the ability to block Trojan modules, and the ability to withstand the most difficult ways of inserting and hiding malicious code, DW PF scores the maximum number of points and successfully passes through a multi-level rating system . " Well, yes, exactly. But to download these tests (there are now 148, by the way!) And to check Andrei was weak. For we have the following "pearl":
8. "but in the reports of Matousec, available to anyone, we did not find any mention of DefenseWall Personal Firewall . " Of course, he's not there! Just open the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the “Proactive Security Challenge” section to understand that no beta tests are accepted, and there are no other versions of the Personal Firewall yet!
9. "One of the readers of the anti-virus portal Virusinfo.info caught praised the firewall in the failure of several tests . " The only question is what exactly. We follow the link and read: the Comodo Buffer Overflow test failed on the buffer overflow (and DefenseWall does not protect against this type of attack), PCFlank failed (because it was launched from the trusted zone, as it was found out later, from the untrusted the test is passed to ") And do not hide (" stealth ") ports. Well, yes, the ports are not hiding, for tell me, what does this have to do with security in principle and the protection of the trusted zone of the sandbox in particular?
10. "And the forum member on the Anti-malware.ru website was able to face a situation where a malicious application disrupted the components of the firewall . " This is generally Pearl with a capital letter, because the person obviously worked not with the Personal Firewall, but with HIPS. Yes, and I drove this Virut.56 - nothing dangerous, the sandbox worked at 100%. But why will Andrew bother himself with tests, it is better to bring the posts from the forums a month ago as an irrefutable proof!
11. "We did not fail to use diagnostic tools and, running the Atelier Web Firewall Tester utility, found that in terms of the protection level of DW PF, it is not inferior to the built-in Windows firewall . " The most interesting statement in this opus, because it is the only verifiable direct natural science experiment. So, we go to the site, download “Atelier Web Firewall Tester” (a rather poor test compared to Matousec, by the way) with an untrusted browser, unpack and run the installer (it is immediately obvious that DefenseWall inherited the “untrusted” attribute). After installation, run the test and easily type the maximum 10 points in it. Obviously, we are doing everything wrong, and only Andrei Krupin has the right to the “correct” result.
It is a pity to see such articles on Komputerra website written by staff journalists. In my eyes, Terra fell below the level of the sewer. I asked to remove the material, but no one did anything. Sorry, but I have to defend my honor and the honor of my product, they have left me no choice.
Do you still want your innovative product to be spat upon in the semi-professional Russian media? In my opinion, it’s better to immediately focus on the West and the press is more professional there (I have never met such pitiable misunderstanding of innovative products, and most importantly, persistent persistence in one’s own ignorance and complete unwillingness to understand), and the public is more responsive to everything new.
PS I myself wrote to the paper Computerra in 2007. And therefore more doubly painful.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/80613/
All Articles