fprot for dos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Conor
  • Start date Start date
C

Conor

opensesameftp said:
new version of fprot for dos v 315 downloaded from ftp.f-prot.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile in the 21st Century the rest of us have moved on from that
archaic system.
 
new version of fprot for dos v 315 downloaded from ftp.f-prot.com
Meanwhile in the 21st Century the rest of us have moved on from that
archaic system.
Click to expand...

Some of us still enjoy the ability to clean our computers by
booting into DOS from a floppy. Think of that the next time your
Windows XP machine gets infested.
 
Conor typed:
Meanwhile in the 21st Century the rest of us have moved on from that
archaic system.
Click to expand...

Some people love their model T car with the cute runner in front warning all
the polluting horse riders that a new fangled automobile is coming spewing
carbon monoxide.

Carbon monoxide dissipates quickly but I have yet to see horse droppings
dissipate without intervention.

However cow droppings when dried make good Frisbees.
 
When your Windoze system is corrupted by some of the recent viruses, you
might find booting a DOS diskette (or CD or USB) and running F-prot for DOS
a *very* welcome change of pace...
 
new version of fprot for dos v 315 downloaded from ftp.f-prot.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting us know about the update.
I used to think that I could only run FProt in DOS and booted into DOS
to run it. I have found, however, that I can run FProt in Windows 98 SE.
When I do so, the program cannot scan the swap file (it being in use)and
some immunized files, but it scans everything else.

Lefty
 
When your Windoze system is corrupted by some of the recent viruses, you
might find booting a DOS diskette (or CD or USB) and running F-prot for DOS
a *very* welcome change of pace...
Click to expand...

Can F-prot for DOS read the NTFS file system?
 
Can F-prot for DOS read the NTFS file system?
Click to expand...

Not on its own. It uses standard system functions for file access. If you
provide a NTFS driver like ntfsdos or readntfs you can scan NTFS from a
pure DOS prompt. But because there are a lot of sources for problems this
way - you'll possibly be better off with a Linux (maybe running from a
boot CD) and the Linux version of f-prot.

BeAr
 
Some of us still enjoy the ability to clean our computers by
booting into DOS from a floppy. Think of that the next time your
Windows XP machine gets infested.
Click to expand...
How does that work on NTFS 5 formatted partitions then?
 
No. In fact it shouldn't be used on NT based OS even with FAT32. It's
not likely to scan all files and folders.
Click to expand...
So in the grand scheme of things it can be counted as pretty useless
for anything newer than Windows ME.
 
Conor said:
So in the grand scheme of things it can be counted as pretty useless
for anything newer than Windows ME.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. If you use a boot disk (CD) like a BART PE boot CD
that will allow you to boot XP cleanly, F-Prot DOS will do an acceptable
job finding and cleaning viruses from the hard drive. I have no idea how
or if it cleans the registry entries many of these virus' leave behind,
but it should get you to a point where you can boot your OS and clean
the system from there. So I would say it is very valuable in helping to
clean an infected Win2K/XP system that refuses to let you scan from
within the OS itself.
 
Meanwhile in the 21st Century the rest of us have moved on from that
archaic system.
Click to expand...

Uh! What an outstanding opinion! If it wasn't due to the fact that many
people under-estimate f-prot for DOS I wouldn't have thought of replying
to *that*. But so it be:

I myself use f-prot (DOS) direct from inside W2k. I've included it in the
context menu for files, folders and drives. Although f-prot is reported
having problems on scanning deep nested directories with large amounts
of files on NTFS drives it *does* the job very well inside a (near) top
level 'Download' directory, regardless of the file system. (As long as
it is supported by the OS.)

Frankly spoken: A real time scanner could not improve the security of
my system, but would only cost system resources. Real time scanners are
good for people with minor skills in safe hex. So these programs have a
(big) market. But a (pack of) decent on demand scanner(s) can also be
the best solution in some conditions. As long as a scanner tells me if
an object is infected or not with a sufficient certainty I could not
care less about it's origins. Sure, f-prot isn't *the best* scanner at
the moment. But it is still *one of the best*. I use it in combination
with <OT> two other scanners </OT> and often wait one to three weeks
between the download of a program and the first try-out. (At least if
there is the slightest scent of malware on it.) In this timeframe the
detection of a new threat will be added with near to 100 % certainty.

BeAr
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson said:
Not on its own. It uses standard system functions for file access. If you
provide a NTFS driver like ntfsdos or readntfs you can scan NTFS from a
pure DOS prompt. But because there are a lot of sources for problems this
way - you'll possibly be better off with a Linux (maybe running from a
boot CD) and the Linux version of f-prot.
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, there's no reason why you can't make yourself a
Win2K or XP boot CD and use it. I keep mine reasonable updated with
virus scanners/fixers and system tools.
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
If you need help with this, post here, I'll do my best to help.
 
As I stated earlier, there's no reason why you can't make yourself a
Win2K or XP boot CD and use it. I keep mine reasonable updated with
virus scanners/fixers and system tools.
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
If you need help with this, post here, I'll do my best to help.
Click to expand...

No, thank you. I have (nearly) all kinds of boot discs and CD's myself.
I have (uhm, lets count) 5 different OS installed side by side. Each one
has it's own backup(s). Some can't access the other without special
interference by me. So I think having all tools I maybe could need on
hands... ;-)

There are some reasons why I advise using Linux instead of Readntfs or
Ntfsdos. The most important applies to your solution, too. (As long as
you have to scan a whole system and don't use the Windows version of
f-prot - which is not free.): F-prot for DOS has reported problems with
deep nested NTFS directories and large amounts of files inside folders.

But back to the emergency recovering: More than 10 years on the net
didn't bring one virus or other malware lifely on one of my computers!
I don't even remember the last time a scanner found an infected file
within my downloads. If I could recall all detected malware I surely
could count these on one hand. The problems lay otherwhere: 'Safe hex'
is the key.

BeAr
 
Conor said:
So in the grand scheme of things it can be counted as pretty useless
for anything newer than Windows ME.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true -- anything newer than Win ME can still use FAT32.
 
Conor typed:

Some people love their model T car with the cute runner in front warning all
the polluting horse riders that a new fangled automobile is coming spewing
carbon monoxide.

Carbon monoxide dissipates quickly but I have yet to see horse droppings
dissipate without intervention.

However cow droppings when dried make good Frisbees.
Click to expand...

You are gifted
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson said:
No, thank you. I have (nearly) all kinds of boot discs and CD's myself.
I have (uhm, lets count) 5 different OS installed side by side. Each one
has it's own backup(s). Some can't access the other without special
interference by me. So I think having all tools I maybe could need on
hands... ;-)

There are some reasons why I advise using Linux instead of Readntfs or
Ntfsdos. The most important applies to your solution, too. (As long as
you have to scan a whole system and don't use the Windows version of
f-prot - which is not free.): F-prot for DOS has reported problems with
deep nested NTFS directories and large amounts of files inside folders.

But back to the emergency recovering: More than 10 years on the net
didn't bring one virus or other malware lifely on one of my computers!
I don't even remember the last time a scanner found an infected file
within my downloads. If I could recall all detected malware I surely
could count these on one hand. The problems lay otherwhere: 'Safe hex'
is the key.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I am, for better or worse, the goto guy for many
friends when it comes to their computers. It continues to amaze me how
people can be so careless with data they consider indispensible. Some
even run home businesses and refuse to use safer computing practices, or
back up regularily. My experience is that for fixing XP, XP is a better
solution for me than linux, and I use linux regularily. FWIW, NTFS
access thru linux is still noted as experimental. Although it does work
AFAIKT, there are many disclaimers regarding reliability and data
corruption.
 
Back
Top