N
Noozer
Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
software?
Thx
software?
Thx
A
ah
Noozer said:
Effective; unobtrusive; small (memory/disk) footprint; cheap; signatures updated
almost every day; no spam from Frisk/RAEInternet.
Could be a little more customizable in the Scanning Profiles section.
It also seems to lack an interactive way to delete/clean infections.
A very simple, little program--what it does is just enough ;-)
N
null
F-Prot has long been highly regarded. It's quite fast and quite good.
It has most always tested well in the past by various testing
agencies.
Personally, I've been a bit disappointed lately with certain things,
however. FSI haven't displayed much interest in keeping up with the
likes of Kaspersky and McAfee as a top notch general malware detector.
Samples of actual new malicious code sent to them are too often
ignored. And they are relatively slow in reacting to new malicious
code that other scanners detect. Many Trojans that are detected are
not specifically identified and given a malware name. Of course, FSI
isn't alone in this. McAfee is just slightly better in that it gives
(sort of) generic malware names in many cases. IOW, McAfee tends to
identify a number of diferent malwares by the same name. It's a sign
of the times I guess. There are endless malwares that are quite
similar, and it seems than coming up with endless names and variant
specifiers is a losing game in the long run
If you want a top notch general malware detector, find a version of
KAV you can live with instead. Or use one of the products that use the
KAV scan engine.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
H
Hercules Smackbottom
I vote "good", but it should be the MS-DOS version, run under pure MS-DOS.
(Start the computer from a DOS boot disk, so Windows is totally dormant.)
That way every file gets scanned, even those that are part of windows.
This computer has NEVER copped a virus when F-PROT is around!
(touch wood)
J
James Egan
Although it appears to finish okay, the (free) dos version won't run
properly in a winxp command window regardless of whether you have a
fat32 or a ntfs filesystem.
On the (pay) windows version it appears to run okay but does stop for
a breather on some files it finds difficult to scan. It appears to get
hung up but eventually continues.
Jim.
K
kurt wismer
Hercules said:
nope...
if you can read the filesystem after booting from an msdos floppy then
f-prot for dos is fine, but if the filesystem is ntfs then f-prot for
windows is more or less required...
K
kurt wismer
Noozer said:
bottom line - if you're looking to detect viruses then f-prot is
good... make sure you use the version that's appropriate for your
operating system, though...
B
bassbag
Im just wondering if tech protect (free) which is a windows shell for
fprot for dos would work for you?.It has auto updater plus resident/on
demand scan capabilities using the fprot for dos engine
http://www.tech-pro.net/techprotect.html
me
J
James Egan
I thought this was only a graphical front end. Are you saying that it
will scan all files on winxp?
Jim.
H
Hercules Smackbottom
You're absolutely right. I should have mentioned that. Sorry...
B
bassbag
Im not exactly sure as i run 98.It seems different to the fprot for dos
that i tried a year or two ago although it does use its defenitions.It
gives the rightclcik shell ability and has a resident as well as
ondemand scanner , plus an auto/manual updater.It also has an excluder
folder for excluded files etc.
me
J
James Egan
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:26:27 -0000, bassbag said
I tried Tech-Protect out to see. Though there's not enough output
statistics to say definitively, it appears to do the business (on a
FAT32 xp home system)
What appears to happen is that tech-protect creates its own list of
(sub)directories to scan (independently of f-prot) and then applies
f-prot to the list. Whether this gets by f-prot dos's limitations I
can't say. Certainly, the list of directories shown being scanned is
all in long filenames and appears to complete okay. It shouldn't take
too much effort for a later version of tech-protect to return the
number of files scanned in addition to the number of directories
(which it does now). That would be definitive when compared to
f-prot's own numbers.
Other than that my main comment on the program would be that it needs
to occasionally yield time to the operating system. Something similar
to a vb DoEvents() function.
I didn't run it all the way through but the "clean" function seemed to
just start the scanning process again rather than feeding the results
of the "scan" function into it. Not sure why that's necessary.
Jim.
I tried Tech-Protect out to see. Though there's not enough output
statistics to say definitively, it appears to do the business (on a
FAT32 xp home system)
What appears to happen is that tech-protect creates its own list of
(sub)directories to scan (independently of f-prot) and then applies
f-prot to the list. Whether this gets by f-prot dos's limitations I
can't say. Certainly, the list of directories shown being scanned is
all in long filenames and appears to complete okay. It shouldn't take
too much effort for a later version of tech-protect to return the
number of files scanned in addition to the number of directories
(which it does now). That would be definitive when compared to
f-prot's own numbers.
Other than that my main comment on the program would be that it needs
to occasionally yield time to the operating system. Something similar
to a vb DoEvents() function.
I didn't run it all the way through but the "clean" function seemed to
just start the scanning process again rather than feeding the results
of the "scan" function into it. Not sure why that's necessary.
Jim.