the 2 questions

[computer geek]

hi people, as you know, i am still slightly new to the forum and would like to ask the following questions-
1. what is f-prot internet explorer protection?
2. what is iolo's detection rate? more recent ones would be better, the more tests, the better.

thanks

[flyrfan111]

Answer for #1

http://www.f-prot.com/support/windows/fpwin_faq/459.html

Can't help you #2 as I have never used iolo.

[computer geek]

question 1 solved.

[C.S.J]

answer for 2.

it has never been tested, it uses their own engine now, untested and untried.

[computer geek]

-{ Quote: "answer for 2.

it has never been tested, it uses their own engine now, untested and untried." }-
never? ever? question 2 is still on.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "never? ever? question 2 is still on." }-
correct, never.

not from any reputable testers, doubt it will be aswell.

[flyrfan111]

I think it would mysteriously score about the same as F-Prot.

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "I think it would mysteriously score about the same as F-Prot." }-
New or old engine ;)

[computer geek]

-{ Quote: "I think it would mysteriously score about the same as F-Prot." }-
any facts or evidence supporting your claim?

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "any facts or evidence supporting your claim?" }-

Plenty, see this thread.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1170168#post1170168

BC-The old engine

[computer geek]

-{ Quote: "Plenty, see this thread.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1170168#post1170168

BC-The old engine" }-
but how is it linked to f-prot?
-{ Quote: "iolo dont use Authentium, or F-Prot or panda or kaspersky. They use their own " }-
???

[De Hollander]

-{ Quote: "what is iolo's detection rate? more recent ones would be better, the more tests, the better." }-

VB100 Results:

December 2007 - Iolo Antivirus
Status: FAIL
Failure reason: 34 wildlist misses
Product name: Iolo Antivirus
Review: Iolo Antivirus on Windows 2000

June 2007 - iolo AntiVirus 1.1.9
Status: FAIL
Failure reason: 2 wildlist misses, 2 false positives
Product name: iolo AntiVirus 1.1.9
Review: iolo AntiVirus 1.1.9 on Windows XP


Westcoast labs:

Windows XP Professional
Version 1.1.15 07
Date Passed 12/2007
Windows XP Professional

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "

???" }-
why the puzzled look?

its not hard to understand, iolo use their own technology, their own engine and their own signatures, its all them. :)


as far as im aware....

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "but how is it linked to f-prot?

???" }-

Did you read posts 33 and 37 in that thread?

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "why the puzzled look?

its not hard to understand, iolo use their own technology, their own engine and their own signatures, its all them. :)


as far as im aware...." }-

It is NOT their own technology, they are using Frisk/Authentium's engine and falsely claiming it to be their own.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "It is NOT their own technology, they are using Frisk/Authentium's engine and falsely claiming it to be their own." }-
take a look ......

i already had this conversation with techno before shouting off.

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "take a look ......

i already had this conversation with techno before shouting off." }-

Their AV installs a folder named "Authentium" and they name malware the same way Authentium and Frisk do. I don't care what their tech support site says, they use the Authentium/F-Prot Engine. Look at the facts, not what they say.

Techno told you this in the other thread;
When you install Iolo AV and look under "Common Files" folder you’ll see "Authentium" folder. Also if you look at various other files and drivers you will see that they belong to Authentium Inc. Simple as that....


PPK is a Classic....
See his post number 37 in the Iolo AV thread

[C.S.J]

the posts in this thread were created before my little coversation with techno, this is the problem when you have 2 threads saying the same things.

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "the posts in this thread were created before my little coversation with techno, this is the problem when you have 2 threads saying the same things." }-


Ahhhh, now I get it. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[computer geek]

so am i right in saying it uses fprot 3, its detection rates arn't quite good?
what would you guys give out of ten?

[flyrfan111]

For F-Prot 3? About a 7

[computer geek]

-{ Quote: "For F-Prot 3? About a 7" }-
But certainly, it is not good as fprot 6? why buy this then?

[flyrfan111]

The score for F-Prot is version 6, the score for Command is version 3

[computer geek]

-{ Quote: "The score for F-Prot is version 6, the score for Command is version 3" }-
ah...................................................... :-[ well, thats iolo for you! if anyone else has info, please post.

[Frisk]

I must admit I am a bit mystified about Iolo. As I wrote in the other Iolo thread, I had not heard of them until today. Searching the web, I find claims that they have developed their own technology - see for example here:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=E0EC2845-54E4-4D77-87BB-5362EF42C554

and on their own web site it says "Each component of the Professional suite has new and enhanced features — all engineered and designed from the ground up by iolo and all compatible with the new Windows Vista operating system."

It is, however, pretty clear that they are using the F-PROT technology, or, more specifically, Authentium's implementation of the F-PROT 3.x technology.

Given that they are still using our v3 engine, I am however quite happy that they don't have a big "Powered by F-PROT" logo - it would quite frankly be embarrassing to us - the detection rate of v3 is far behind the rate for v4, and v3 only has a fraction of the heuristic detection ability of v4.

It's almost 3 years since the first SDKs for our v4 engine were released, and some of our partners have been using v4 for over a year. All development of v3 was stopped over a year ago, but we are still making some minimal additions to the v3 definition file - adding detection of samples that are on the "Wildlist" and so on.

However, as far as I am concerned, v3 is obsolete technology.

I have not tried calling them, asking whether/when they will be upgrading to 4.x, but if anyone wants to give them a call, it would be interesting to hear what the have to say.

[flyrfan111]

It seems like a shady deal to me. Thanks for looking into it Frisk.

[Inspector Clouseau]

-{ Quote: "I must admit I am a bit mystified about Iolo. As I wrote in the other Iolo thread, I had not heard of them until today. Searching the web, I find claims that they have developed their own technology - see for example here:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=E0EC2845-54E4-4D77-87BB-5362EF42C554
" }-

As i said yesterday already that's a ******** press release. The headline states that they switched away from KAV OEM Engine (because it costs more money per license than Authentium) and then they wrote:

-{ Quote: "Iolo claims another differentiating factor for the bundle is that the AV signatures are now updated hourly." }-

LOL?

The point of a faked "own developed technology" is an old "business trick". Has 3 real purposes:

1. To statisfy investors and to have some reason for spending money/resources on "Research and Development" (that applies to most companies...) Nearly half of the investors do not have the technical knowledge or the methods to verify that something was really developed "in-house". And frankly, even if they come behind the "trick" and it sells who cares?

2. To let the product look more "interesting" to the ordinary users, since you can claim whatever you want if your "own" technology is included because nobody can lookup the real facts. (You can do that with OEM SDK sheets ofc)

3. Because Marketing/Sales said so to do so. Means also they don't have any real world expierence in that business since the "Secret" flies away when the product gets tested by someone (organisation etc) who knows how to determine that. Embarrassment and trouble is pre-programmed with such behavior.

I do agree with Fridrik that it's only a good thing that they don't brag with "Powered by F-Prot" and then using an old, obsolete version. But tbh towards to their costumers that's not a nice "move".

Mike

[flyrfan111]

Couldn't agree more Mike, and thanks again for looking into it, I know you guys are busy. Hopefully we have enlightened a few people at least to stay away from the product.

[jrmhng]

Thanks for clarifying. Now we know what the iolo av is powered by.

[computer geek]

So summing up, iolo is powered by f-prot 3 which has poor detection rates compared to the recent ones, i don't really fancy it...

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "So summing up, iolo is powered by f-prot 3 which has poor detection rates compared to the recent ones, i don't really fancy it..." }-

Correct.