F-Secure Internet Security 2007 opinions?

[Kielty]

Any thoughts on the above software?

I have been trialling this and although it hogs a fair bit of resources seems to run nicely on recommended settings.

One thought, it scans predefined files by default. Changing to scan all files takes forever. Is there much of a risk by leaving it scanning predefined files?

Is it just me or is the spamn filter rubbish? It lets through so many blatantly obvious spam?

[kai666]

I tried it as I used to have f-secure 2006. I found it painfully slow, so uninstalled it after about half an hour. Boot up took much longer, I clicked a button on the main menu and nothing happened for ages, when it did find viruses, it couldn't get rid of them. I was very disappointed by it

Currently using Bullguard which is so much better in everyway (so far!)

[Banshee]

Hi,

I installed f-secure is 2007 a few days ago but had to uninstall it because it slowed my pc to a crawl.boot up took also for ever so it was a no go for me.

I would like to try the f-secure Av but I am not sure I want to do it because I dont want go thru the hassle of unistalling my kav6, installing f-secure only to find out that the f-secure av is a resource hog just like the suite. Too lazy I guess :-)

[Ngwana]

{QUOTE-> Any thoughts on the above software?

1. Changing to scan all files takes forever. Is there much of a risk by leaving it scanning predefined files?

2. Is it just me or is the spamn filter rubbish? It lets through so many blatantly obvious spam? <-QUOTE}


1. Most of the potentially problematic files types are predefined, the option to scan all files can be used less frequently.

2.The 'bundled' spam filter is actually is as good as it gets. The recent problem is that there is spam trying to fool 'spam filters' by taking advantage of how bayesian filters work. What it actually means is that spammers have learnt how spam filters learn, and in turn 'disguise spam' to be let through. All spam filters must adapt once more. So it is not a problem only for F-secure. ;D

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> 1. Most of the potentially problematic files types are predefined, the option to scan all files can be used less frequently.

2.The 'bundled' spam filter is actually is as good as it gets. The recent problem is that there is spam trying to fool 'spam filters' by taking advantage of how bayesian filters work. What it actually means is that spammers have learnt how spam filters learn, and in turn 'disguise spam' to be let through. All spam filters must adapt once more. So it is not a problem only for F-secure. ;D <-QUOTE}

in the two years that i have used f-secure i have always used defined files.

[C.S.J]

well. ... a hog is too strong a word.

yes it does take long to boot, but its not the slowest.
yes scanning speed takes ages, but they have improved.

f-secure IS 2007 is one of those suites then when you use, you 'feel' super safe, its got sooo much into the package, that a user does not even know about.

of all the suites i have used, you do feel more secure with f-secure.

hope that makes sense.

i would rate it in my top 3 at the moment, along with norton 2007 and avg (Although some things need changing at the moment in avg)

[Banshee]

>{QUOTE-> well. ... a hog is too strong a word.


Maybe not.Not here for sure.It has been the heaviest suite i tried to date.If it works good for u then fine.For you it is not a hog...

[C.S.J]

maybe your settings are to high, it does use the kaspersky engine and kaspersky slows down majorly when set too high.

its definatly not the slowest, maybe try gdata's AVK or ca security suite 2007, they are majorly slow.

you want a fast suite, avg's, quickest boot up time of them all and runs the fastest.

depends just what your looking for, whats your main preference in a suite?

take a look here maybe? http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=151142

[Banshee]

Hello,

depends just what your looking for, whats your main preference in a suite?




Well, I have kav6 (beta),Outpost 4, SSM free, ewido,adaware , spybot and today I dl spyware terminator. I think I'm pretty much all set. I just wanted to try something else...but I don't see any AV or FW that comes close to the ones I have now




take a look here maybe? http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=151142 <-QUOTE}

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

depends just what your looking for, whats your main preference in a suite?




Well, I have kav6 (beta),Outpost 4, SSM free, ewido,adaware , spybot and today I dl spuware terminator. I think I'm pretty much all set. I just wanted to try something else...but I don't see any AV or FW that comes close to the ones I have now




take a look here maybe? http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=151142 <-QUOTE} <-QUOTE}

i hope you aint running all those are the same time, i can see conflicts, and software that just isnt needed.

spybot, adaware , i think you can ditch them for spyware terminator, or pick your favourite and ditch the other two.

i think if you want free stuff, try avg with comodo and spyware terminator.

if you want an all in one, check the link i provided and try one or two and give em a go if your interested in a suite.

if you dont mind paying, give trend antispyware a go, im sure they will have a trial to try though.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> <-QUOTE}

>i hope you aint running all those are the same time, i can see conflicts, and software that just isnt needed.


No, I have kav6 (proactive defense off), ssm free and outpost 4 (some plugins disabled) at the same time. The other software are used as on-demand scanners only.


>spybot, adaware , i think you can ditch them for spyware terminator, or pick your favourite and ditch the other two.



I keep them because many times one prog finds what the other misses u never know :-)

>i think if you want free stuff, try avg with comodo and spyware terminator.



Comodo ? I have looked into it...was just curious but decided to give it a miss..I will look into avg in the future :-P

[starfish_001]

I use it on and off - it offers very good overall protection but does tend to be heavy on the machine - that said it very good.

The firewall component is the worst part by far. I'd try Comodo to sup this part

[C.S.J]

actually i find the firewall very good....

also performs well in leaktests.

[starfish_001]

{QUOTE-> actually i find the firewall very good....

also performs well in leaktests. <-QUOTE}

Interesting - when I tested it it failed a lot of leak test - so I gave up with that component


tooleaky - pass
wallbreaker - fail
dnstester - fail
leaktest - pass
breakout - fail

[C.S.J]

hmm maybe....

but dnstester is not what id call a test... doesnt do anything put flush the dns, doesnt even take me off the net.

and breakout doesnt even work, so dont know how it fails that one.


-------

also, there are many other ways to test a firewall and compared to others in suites, the f-secure one is a good one.

i personally dont just judge a firewall on firewallleaktester, might be a popular site on here, but i dont find it creditable, as quite a few of those tests are poor in my opinion.

and anyone who can judge look n stop the best firewall, erm .. no thanks.
i prefer proper tests, in the real world... on the internet, with real hackers and people trying to get things from a PC, if you know where to test these things... you can judge the good against the bad, i assure you.

so forgive me to take what firewallleaktester has to say as ... nothing more than hearsay.

i will not be one of the 'fools' to judge an antivirus just on av-comparatives and firewalls just on firewallleaktester.

[Banshee]

Do you think f.l.tester is no good ? and av-comparatives ?

[JerryM]

Although F-Secure uses a lot of memory, it seems to run well with other applications. At least on my system that is the case.

I do not notice the memory usage. At start I have several programs going for an update, and the start is a little slower that KAV 6 which I have on my desktop with the same applications as the laptop.

On balance I like F-Secure. If it runs well, set and forget, I will tolerate the slower start.

Avira was faster than either, but it did not run well. I hope they get the update, not opening in the tray, and guard not always active at start problems fixed.

Best,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Do you think f.l.tester is no good ? and av-comparatives ? <-QUOTE}

i dont think f.l.tester is good enough to test a firewall on and yes, some of their so called tests are poo-poo.

we know av comparatives is a good test... but not enough to judge on whether you use this or that antivirus.

[starfish_001]

{QUOTE->

also, there are many other ways to test a firewall and compared to others in suites, the f-secure one is a good one.

i personally dont just judge a firewall on firewallleaktester, might be a popular site on here, but i dont find it creditable, as quite a few of those tests are poor in my opinion.
] <-QUOTE}

I'd agree there is more to testing than leak tests or GRC. Personally I like Outpost as a firewall - Comodo is not bad - LNS is ok but not for me.


I'd agree that FIS is one of the very best suites out but I prefer KIS overall as a suite. Or to install FSAV with a separate firewall component

The right product is probably one that the user is happy using....

[Banshee]

Ok, in ur opinion, f.l.tester is not good enough and a-v. comparatives no so great too but in my experience, when I had to pick a fw and an antivirus I almost always checked those sites and never went wrong.not yet. I used ZA a long time ago then..LNS,Kerio and outpost and they were/are all good. As for avs, I used antivir ( a long time ago and it was a piece of junk..now they say it got better but I'll pass on that)..Norton (ages ago), then Nod32 and Kav for the past few years.

Most of them were on those sites and them sites did help me pick the right one..for me at least :-P

[larryb52]

you'll be secure but it's a slow boot & a bit heavy but you do feel secure, do watch false positives...

[Kielty]

Thanks for everyones contributions, i find that after a relatively slow start up things run smoothly and quickly. ok the ram usage is high but i have 2gb of ram and it doesn't seem to cause any major speed issues. I was a little concerned over leaving the scan settings on 'predefined files' but it seems from previous posts this is not a major security issue.

Although a full scan 'everything' would take hours, a full system scan on 'predefined files' takes less than an hour to cover 75gb.

FIS works smoothly with every other piece of software on my system.

The only thing that really annoys me is the spamfilter. MS outlook's junk filter seems to do a better job!

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Thanks for everyones contributions, i find that after a relatively slow start up things run smoothly and quickly. ok the ram usage is high but i have 2gb of ram and it doesn't seem to cause any major speed issues. I was a little concerned over leaving the scan settings on 'predefined files' but it seems from previous posts this is not a major security issue.

Although a full scan 'everything' would take hours, a full system scan on 'predefined files' takes less than an hour to cover 75gb.

FIS works smoothly with every other piece of software on my system.

The only thing that really annoys me is the spamfilter. MS outlook's junk filter seems to do a better job! <-QUOTE}


i never seem to get along with antispam in suites.
i just use my ISP's spam filter and what ever gets through delete it.
its a good suite and if you done mind the memory usage and the slow down its fine.
always loads up and hardly any errors maybe update issues sometimes.
I am switching to nod32 because my pc is getting old and cant really handle f-secure anymore.
when i first had my pc and at the time f-secure 2005 my pc was super fast but my pc was brand new at the time so it wasnt surprising. basically this is a goodbye to f-secure and telling you my experience of it.
the only barrier now is my dad and ive got to get his permisson to use nod32 instead should be able to install within a few weeks.
lodore

[C.S.J]

the memory usage isnt all that bad, memory usage means absolutly nothing for how it runs, some of the highest ram programs, run the best.

avg suite can use 40mb up to very high sometimes.... and it runs the best by far of any suite ive tried, boot up time is below any other suite aswell.

i think if your machine can handle the ram usage of any security software, it shouldnt be a worry at all, also ... how many processes it runs, does this even matter? .. erm NO, but certain people seem to think they do.

[Creekside Rogue]

Hi all:

I've just recently trialed F-Secure 2007 as well, and frankly, it worked very well for me. Enough to purchase a 3-user license. I can't agree about it being a resource hog. The whole suite uses up only about 58-63k on my machine. Contrast this with McAfee Internet Security (158k). Panda's current suite ran at around 90k. Norton 2007 appears to run somewhere around 60k on my machine. But my task manager can't see any of it's running processes. I also note that Trend Micro's 2007 security suite runs over 135k.

Please forgive the use of the lower case k. Should I be using the upper case letter? Or should I just put three 0's after the initial figures? Oh Well. Most fo the readers here know what I mean. As far as scan time, I'm not too overly bothered since I know from AV comparatives that F-Secure is ranked fairly high in detection rating. I like the new features, like DeepScan. My machine, an XP Home, P4 2.4 ghz with 1 gig of RAM seems to run F-Secure 2007 effortlessly.

If you want a faster scan, I would suggest NOD32 or Panda. Antivir runs fairly quickly on my wife's laptop. My only problem with F-Secure 2007 is getting it installed properly on her computer. I've already installed F-Secure on my desktop and laptop.

Personally, if NOD32 already had a security suite available, I would probably be using it instead. That's something I'll consider next year after my F-Secure subscription runs out, and if Eset has actually delivered their new suite as promised.

Creekside Rogue

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Hi all:

I've just recently trialed F-Secure 2007 as well, and frankly, it worked very well for me. Enough to purchase a 3-user license. I can't agree about it being a resource hog. The whole suite uses up only about 58-63k on my machine. Contrast this with McAfee Internet Security (158k). Panda's current suite ran at around 90k. Norton 2007 appears to run somewhere around 60k on my machine. But my task manager can't see any of it's running processes. I also note that Trend Micro's 2007 security suite runs over 135k.

Please forgive the use of the lower case k. Should I be using the upper case letter? Or should I just put three 0's after the initial figures? Oh Well. Most fo the readers here know what I mean. As far as scan time, I'm not too overly bothered since I know from AV comparatives that F-Secure is ranked fairly high in detection rating. I like the new features, like DeepScan. My machine, an XP Home, P4 2.4 ghz with 1 gig of RAM seems to run F-Secure 2007 effortlessly.

If you want a faster scan, I would suggest NOD32 or Panda. Antivir runs fairly quickly on my wife's laptop. My only problem with F-Secure 2007 is getting it installed properly on her computer. I've already installed F-Secure on my desktop and laptop.

Personally, if NOD32 already had a security suite available, I would probably be using it instead. That's something I'll consider next year after my F-Secure subscription runs out, and if Eset has actually delivered their new suite as promised.

Creekside Rogue <-QUOTE}


i agree its a great suite but i can get the same protection with lighter programs.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> i agree its a great suite but i can get the same protection with lighter programs. <-QUOTE}


I agree with you.Provided f-secure is good.It's darn heavy.Why do you have to put up with all those 60k+ when you can get the same protection using kav and adaware ? F-secure uses those same engines right ?

My question is why bother with F-secure ? I do like trying diff progs myself but in this case it just doesnt make any sense to me:wacko:

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> I agree with you.Provided f-secure is good.It's darn heavy.Why do you have to put up with all those 60k+ when you can get the same protection using kav and adaware ? F-secure uses those same engines right ?

My question is why bother with F-secure ? I do like trying diff progs myself but in this case it just doesnt make any sense to me:wacko: <-QUOTE}

ye your right it does use ad aware.

kav+ad aware would be lighter the other thing is you cant really run anyother antispyware product next to it and everyone knows that ad aware has had its day.

[Banshee]

Ok, so use kav+ some other as ? I have the feeling sometimes ppl buy proggies because they like the gui and all that...:o

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Ok, so use kav+ some other as ? I have the feeling sometimes ppl buy proggies because they like the gui and all that...:o <-QUOTE}


im gonna use nod32+spysweeper+look n stop very soon. and then once spysweeper runs out i will use avg antispyware.
i just need to get my dad to allow me to dump f-secure he doesnt understand that its bloated and nod32 is alot lighter.... any help?

[Banshee]

Lodore,

You could always uninstall f-secure.install nod32+whatever and reboot when ur dad is around .he'll see ur pc will bootup faster ;D

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Lodore,

You could always uninstall f-secure.install nod32+whatever and reboot when ur dad is around .he'll see ur pc will bootup faster ;D <-QUOTE}


I had thought of that but he might be a bit mad=p

i just need to explain to him somehow that the pc will load up faster and the over pc performance will be better. and also we can then use any apps we want because of nod32 great compatibility. any help with that?

i have already send f-secure an email asking for the f-secure removal tool.

[Banshee]

well, once he sees that what you say is true he cant get mad.

Did u get the removal tool ?

[starfish_001]

{QUOTE-> I agree with you.Provided f-secure is good.It's darn heavy.Why do you have to put up with all those 60k+ when you can get the same protection using kav and adaware ? F-secure uses those same engines right ?

My question is why bother with F-secure ? I do like trying diff progs myself but in this case it just doesnt make any sense to me:wacko: <-QUOTE}

The F-Secure AV is based on a modified Kaspersky engine, in-house F-Secure's Signature's Based Engine and F-Secure's Heuristics Engine (Orion and Libra engines).

It also offers Backlight for anti root kit. Also has some sort of a proactive defense style module. I'm not sure what it uses for spyware used to use adware I thought they changed?


It offers very solid protection.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> The F-Secure AV is based on a modified Kaspersky engine, in-house F-Secure's Signature's Based Engine and F-Secure's Heuristics Engine (Orion and Libra engines).


This is interesting.How would f-secure's engine compare to the kaspersky's ?



>It also offers Backlight for anti root kit. Also has some sort of a proactive defense style module.


Some sort ?

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> {QUOTE-> The F-Secure AV is based on a modified Kaspersky engine, in-house F-Secure's Signature's Based Engine and F-Secure's Heuristics Engine (Orion and Libra engines).


This is interesting.How would f-secure's engine compare to the kaspersky's ?



>It also offers Backlight for anti root kit. Also has some sort of a proactive defense style module.


Some sort ? <-QUOTE}

it has its new deepguard and when i right clicked the icon and clicked about it said norman sand box copyright norman.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> {QUOTE->

it has its new deepguard and when i right clicked the icon and clicked about it said norman sand box copyright norman. <-QUOTE}


From Norman Av ? would that make f-secure better than kav ?

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> {QUOTE->


From Norman Av ? would that make f-secure better than kav ? <-QUOTE}


im not sure i havent really read much in to norman sand box

[C.S.J]

f-secure always finds more viruses / malware than kaspersky.


this is because it uses more engines to scan for things and why it also has a bigger scan speed.

depends if you want a quicker scan speed for lower detection rate, whereas the kaspersky has one engine, which f-secure do use... f-secure also have a few others to pick up other things.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> f-secure always finds more viruses / malware than kaspersky.


and also more false positives... looks like it..


this is because it uses more engines to scan for things and why it also has a bigger scan speed.



do you have a link ? I'd be interested ty.

[C.S.J]

nope, it doesnt have more fp's than kaspersky at all.

just because this one is for fsecure, there have been a few for kaspersky aswell you know.

have a link for what banshee, boot times and engines... they are somewhere on this forum, take a search :)

[Banshee]

I meant a link to more info about what engines f-secure uses and all that.

Unfortunately what ppl say here is based more opinions than facts that is why I wanted a link :-)

[C.S.J]

it tells you what engines are installed inside in the program itself, as im using the avg suite at the moment, cannot tell you.

but im sure someone will post a screenshot of the engines, also check www.f-secure.com they have all the information on there, its just finding it. ;D

[JerryM]

I am finding FS 2007 runs somewhat better than 06, but the real improvement is that it updates faster.

It uses a lot of memory, but it does not cause me problems. Right now WTM says that I have 53 processed running and CPU usage is varying from 2 - 7%. I don't know what that is all about, but I have found F-Secure as "trouble free" as any AV I have tried. I don't think there has been a single issue with it.

I had rather have a somewhat heavier AV that runs trouble free, than a light one that has problems on my machine.

If you will just go to any forum you will find that all AVs have problems, and some folks are dissatisfied with that particular one and ditch it.

I like F-Secure, and unless Avira gets the problems I encountered fixed I will probably stay with FS if I use a paid one. Otherwise I will go with Avast Home which has also been totally trouble free on my systems.

KAV remains my favorite, but it is expensive compared to others that I like, and especially Avast Home. ;D

Best,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

i agree... ive always rated f-secure, even back to their seperate backweb days.

toss up between f-secure / avg or the latest norton for me, others just dont enter the picture, as im always looking for the 'suite' (sweet) move. ;D

[Banshee]

Jerry and Csj,


sorry for the delay in answering. I was testing mailwasher pro and I stuffed up so I couldnt find the "instant notification" that wilders sends out when u get mail.

Anyway, Csj, thanks for the info will go to f-secure.com and look for some more info.

@Jerry, I know no av is perfect and they all miss viruses,malware or mess up from time to time. I have 1g of ram and f-secure slowed my pc to a crawl.Not sure why.

It is way to heavy.Kav uses 4megs right now. Its a big diff.


I know kav is expensive but u could use the beta version if ur willing to study the av and contribute to the kav community so to say.Beta versions are not always stable but all u need to do is post on the forum (kaspersky) and they will help u out.Good tradeoff if u ask me

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> i agree... ive always rated f-secure, even back to their seperate backweb days.

toss up between f-secure / avg or the latest norton for me, others just dont enter the picture, as im always looking for the 'suite' (sweet) move. ;D <-QUOTE}

I have been somewhat cautious of suites. I have the impression that some part of suites are problems. It the firewall, for instance, caused problems then the whole application is a problem. However, if I use separate applications I just change the firewall.
It would seem that a suite would be balanced well, and not cause problems, but that does not seem to be the case for whatever reason.

I would like to use a suite, but so far have been too cautious.
Best,
Jerry

[Banshee]

Jerry,

try kav6 beta ?

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I have been somewhat cautious of suites. I have the impression that some part of suites are problems. It the firewall, for instance, caused problems then the whole application is a problem. However, if I use separate applications I just change the firewall.
It would seem that a suite would be balanced well, and not cause problems, but that does not seem to be the case for whatever reason.

I would like to use a suite, but so far have been too cautious.
Best,
Jerry <-QUOTE}

if you dont want a suite, get nod32 with outpost 4 and trend micro antispyware or the avg antispyware, they will work well together creating some kind of personal suite for you.

[JerryM]

Hi Banshee,

I have KAV 6 on my desktop. In fact have a two year license.

I seldom use my laptop except for travel, and when I do it is just to check mail, and visit a few forums such as this, and maybe check in at the airline.

Accordingly, I hate to buy any AV for that, and consider the price of KAV excessive to put on that machine. I do not object to pay AVs, but do consider the cost. When I grew up it was not said, "If you have to ask you can't afford it." Instead it was, "A fool and his money are soon parted." ;D

I did participate in the test the v6 beta, and then bought KAV 6. I still like it better than anything I have tried. I have not found it to be buggy, and except for the update fiasco a few weeks ago, it has run real well without conflicts.

I have found that Avast Home runs well on the laptop, and with the other security applications that I use on it I consider that I am well protected with Avast. BUT, if I could use one with better detection rates I would do so. Accordingly, I am using the free year trial of F-Secure. When it runs out next summer I will see what is available and make a choice.

Other active applications that I use on the laptop are, SAS, AVG AS, Win Patrol, UnHackMe, Spyware Guard, Snoopfree, and Kerio 2.1.5. I realize one might say get such and such, but I am confident that my system is about as well protected, and still runs well, as is reasonable. All run well together, and I do not notice the load.

Best,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

Re: F-Secure Internet Security 2007 opinions?

--------------
i know the hips did a good job on the jumper leaktest, as i know people like to use that site, gave full information about what it was trying to do aswell.

it impressed me, only seen 2 firewalls pass that one.

[starfish_001]

There is a six month trial here of AV part

http://www.f-secure.com/protectyourpc/

scroll to bottom

[Banshee]

Thanks Starfish 8)