Full F-Secure + Adaware Pro for free w/Lifetime License.

[SDS909]

I ran across a company giving away rebranded F-Secure 2005 Pro for free, and F-Secure AntiSpuware (Adaware Pro Rebranded) for free.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enca/Customer+Service+Centre/shawsecure.htm

On the second page it asks for your Shaw customer account number, then says:

"If you are a Shaw customer, please enter the following information. This step is optional and is not required to download Shaw Secure. If you are not a Shaw customer or do not wish to provide this information select the skip button and continue with your download. "

I emailed Shaw about this, and they said its for all current, and possibly future customers, but they said everyone is welcome to have it for free as a marketing tool for Shaw. Huh?

Seems to me F-Secure2005 + AdawarePro(Rebranded to Shaw Security) is now free for life or something?

[Chuck57]

I'm going to give it a shot and see if they'll let me download it. I have never tried F-Secure. Hopefully, it isn't some monster Norton size download or, since I'm on dialup, I might be not have any info for quite a while.

I'm willing to take the time and chance that non Shaw customers won't be stuck with a time limited copy (ala Microsoft's 6 month deal) or an evaluation copy with some things unuseable.

[webmedic]

it is 5.9 megs and the adaware plugin for it is 4.6 megs.

I can not see anyplace in this were it is against thier tos.

[Chuck57]

Yep, 5.9MB. I didn't opt for Adaware since I already have it. I downloaded it, had to reboot twice to get things started, and now it's downloading security updates 7.28MB, and then goes to security applications, unknown right now how big that will be. I think the 5.9MB thing is a downloader or whatever it's called. I'm in the process of downloading the actual software now from the way it looks. We'll see. It is working though, so can't complain, and nothing else to do on a cold, windy, day.

*edit* okay, downloading software package, 33.94MB *sigh*

Well, sure wish we had broadband out here in the sticks.

[quexx88]

Woah, this is awesome.

[tahoma]

any way to download the FULL package, without having to use the download installer?

[Nitrox]

I downloaded this and tried to install it but it wanted to uninstall KAV which I won't do no matter what.
Okay, I went through the registry to clean up the stuff it left behind even though it uninstalled itself supposedly.
I noticed it had tried to install the Backweb client as there were a few entries about it under Shaw Secure.
I don't think I will be installing this again, it makes you think why they would give it away for free. :(

[RAV]

I tried F-Secure Internet Security 2005 and it is a nice package but it really slowed down my P4 3GHz machine with 1GB RAM.

See my review of this and other similar programs-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=69420

[F-secure user]

F-Secure delivers virus definition updates with technology called F-Secure BackWeb. F-Secure BackWeb Client is used to update either centrally managed or stand-alone F-Secure Anti-Virus 5.x

[Nitrox]

-{ Quote: "F-Secure delivers virus definition updates with technology called F-Secure BackWeb. F-Secure BackWeb Client is used to update either centrally managed or stand-alone F-Secure Anti-Virus 5.x" }-

No thanks, I still don't trust it even if it's from a reputable company, I've read a few horror stories about Backweb.

[Mele20]

Beware of F-Secure. Backweb installed mandatory screen savers with ads and forced me to use them. That was about two years ago when I was given a free key for a year's subscription for F-Secure. It wasn't easy to get F-Secure off my box either. Don't go near any application that uses Backweb. Oh, of course, it called home immediately and not to get definition updates.

[Beefcarver]

shaw.ca isnt that a Spammer domain? If you check anywhere you will see they are known for sending thousands or millions spam emails. I wouldnt trust any of that.

[jlo]

Hi,

I ran F-secure 2003 for a year and had no problems with advertising and no problems uninstalling it. thought it was an excellent program with excellent support.

Don't now about Shaw AV though.

Cheers

Jlo

[INTOXSICKATED]

-{ Quote: "No thanks, I still don't trust it even if it's from a reputable company, I've read a few horror stories about Backweb." }-

my old compaq came loaded with backweb crap. caused nothing but problems, and came to find out that compaq themselves stopped using it. this looks too suspicious for me.

[Tinribs]

F-Secure is a seriously good av, I would be more than happy to leave my pc open to its security.
The backweb deal is ,in my opinion, non existent, backweb in this case is needed and welcomed, I have tested and looked into it and its fine.

[bigc73542]

I downloaded this program from shaw and installed it and it is running just fine,back web and all.

bigc

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Hi,

I ran F-secure 2003 for a year and had no problems with advertising and no problems uninstalling it. thought it was an excellent program with excellent support.

Don't now about Shaw AV though.

Cheers

Jlo" }-


The shaw av is just f-secure with shaw on it along with the f-secure logo

bigc

[bigc73542]

And I do like the idea of getting F-Secure AntiSpyware (adaware pro) free also.

bigc

[hollywoodpc]

-{ Quote: "I tried F-Secure Internet Security 2005 and it is a nice package but it really slowed down my P4 3GHz machine with 1GB RAM.

See my review of this and other similar programs-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=69420" }-
Me too . What the Hell ? I am P4 2.4 but , geez . And I have a meg of ram . Slowed me down bigtime .

[bigc73542]

I didn't experience a slow down at all, it actually runs very well on my machine.

bigc

[Honyak]

I am running F-secure 5 on a 1GHz AMD box with 512 mb ram and no slowdown whatsoever.

[hollywoodpc]

Very strange . Big C . I take it you turned off NOD OR did you uninstall to try this Shaw F-Secure deal ?

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Very strange . Big C . I take it you turned off NOD OR did you uninstall to try this Shaw F-Secure deal ?" }-

I still have nod installed but it is set as on demand.

bigc

[hollywoodpc]

Thank you kindly my friend . I may try it out again and see how it goes . Please let me know if you have any problems . Would love to know how you get along with it . Take care for now

[bigc73542]

I will keep you up to date on any problems I might encounter if any in this thread.

bigc

[hollywoodpc]

Sorry for the bother but , one other thing , if you get time . Is this Shaw download the latest version of F-Secure ? Thanks in advance

[bigc73542]

I have noticed one thing about f-secure that you might be interested in. It checks for uodates every hour and when it first checks It slows the comp for about five seconds. That is not anything to worry about but It is something you might would like to know.

bigc

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Sorry for the bother but , one other thing , if you get time . Is this Shaw download the latest version of F-Secure ? Thanks in advance" }-


It is the latest version of F-Secure Internet Security 2005 and the F-Prot Antispyware is the latest version of adaware pro.

[no13]

maybe having a "meg" is a problem... don't ya need more??

[bigc73542]

I had a ram strip go bad and I am only running 512 at the moment and am having no trouble at all.

bigc

[hollywoodpc]

-{ Quote: "maybe having a "meg" is a problem... don't ya need more??" }-
lol . OUCH !! You got me . Yep .

[hollywoodpc]

Big C .
I cannot get it to scan all drives . I click it but nothing happens . Gee whiz . I would like to use it as an on demand and leave NOD in resident . I do not understand why it will not scan .

[bigc73542]

You have tried this

[bigc73542]

Here are some settings I have

[bigc73542]

last one

[no13]

okay...
I'm not at home rightnow, so here's a pretty problem...
My uncle has NOD32 trial and VSE 8i...
He wants me to install f-secure right now... got about one hour. Would I need to uninstall these AVs [both are running real time... it is important that they're NOT uninstalled... onaccess scans may be disabled temporarily though]

I just grabbed shaw secure for him, and also I brought over this...
http://europe.f-secure.com/exclude/download/fsav2005f-06.exe
since he also distrusts online installers.

any way to install it WITHOUT uninstalling the other AVs?

[hollywoodpc]

Thanks Big guy . I understand it all . It just will not run . This is what I have said all along in comparing KAV engines with NOD or any other . KAV engines have a real problem getting along with some programs . So . Off it goes . This is why I always say that NOD is the overall winner . If for no other reason , KAV hates alot of things and will not play nicely . My God . I uninstalled pcIP , Prevx , NOD , and turned off PG , RD , and Outpost . NOPE ! Refuses to work . KAV is good at detection but , my programs are important to me . So , KAV based engines will never go on my machine again . I find this to be very sad on their part . Especially AV makers . They should TRY to make their software compatible . This one is not . I know it works for some . Not on here though so , NOD , again , wins outright . lol . I like NOD . I just wanted to use this Shaw secure for on demand . No response . Very sad . Thank you anyway

[waters]

Am i missing something.
Isnt this for their customers only.
You have to give name and e mail address ,so if you are not will it be discontinued.

[Sputnik]

I don't really trust rebranded AV's from a 3rd party... But ok, feel free to test it, and hope more people will finally discover the power of F-Secure ;)

[Infinity]

Thanx Guys, this is most welcome as secondary av scanner :)

really appreciated!!!

[no13]

-{ Quote: "Thanx Guys, this is most welcome as secondary av scanner :)

really appreciated!!!" }-
If it installs.

[meneer]

-{ Quote: "Am i missing something.
Isnt this for their customers only.
You have to give name and e mail address ,so if you are not will it be discontinued." }-Yeah, what's behind this deal? Who's sponsoring and what for?

[Infinity]

I think I am positive that they will promote their services I guess...there are other isps that give away norton or mcafee products but you gotta be a customer then...It is strange I must admit giving away full working top products...

I will try this evening an experiment not sure about it but I'll keep you informed.

[mikel108]

There sure seems to be a push for Cable companies here in Canada to start using F-Secure. Cogeco already uses it. It is starting to be a selling point for them. I think the big kicker is the tech help from the cable company. My neighbor got it hooked up(switching from Bell), and while the tech was there he installed F-Secure, and then made sure he knew how to use it. The largest Internet company here is Bell. They are giving away Freedom Antivirus by aptly titled ZEROknowledge.

[MushfiQ]

Seems like F Secure have targeted their marketing strategy in Canada already 8)

[minacross]

-{ Quote: "
I emailed Shaw about this, and they said its for all current, and possibly future customers, but they said everyone is welcome to have it for free as a marketing tool for Shaw. Huh?

Seems to me F-Secure2005 + AdawarePro(Rebranded to Shaw Security) is now free for life or something?" }-

what about non-Canadian users? ;) ::)
also where the istallders are stored after downloading for later off-line installation?

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "okay...
I'm not at home rightnow, so here's a pretty problem...
My uncle has NOD32 trial and VSE 8i...
He wants me to install f-secure right now... got about one hour. Would I need to uninstall these AVs [both are running real time... it is important that they're NOT uninstalled... onaccess scans may be disabled temporarily though]

I just grabbed shaw secure for him, and also I brought over this...
http://europe.f-secure.com/exclude/download/fsav2005f-06.exe
since he also distrusts online installers.

any way to install it WITHOUT uninstalling the other AVs?" }-

Why would anyone run two AV products realtime? That makes no sense to me, and can only lead to system slowdowns and instability. Talk about being overly paranoid. You'd be better to run an AV, then a backend security product like DesktopArmor, PrevX or SafeNSec or something. <confused>

[Chuck57]

Well, wouldn't work for me... after a several hour download, it began to install and I got hit with an error message, corrupt file or something, I don't recall what. I was too busy cursing. So.......I'm not willing to go through any more hours of waiting anxiously for something that might not happen. I'll stick to smaller downloads until broadband discovers this area of my State.

[Thorny]

I wonder if this Canadian company have made a mistake by making this offer available to everyone. Hmmm... I would have thought that F-Secure would have put on terms and conditions on this offer being limited to North America. It makes no sense to me that this offer appears to be Worldwide, I had no problem downloading and getting a key here in the UK, so if the software is free who is going to pay F-Secure?

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "what about non-Canadian users? ;) ::)
also where the istallders are stored after downloading for later off-line installation?" }-In Finland, this goes fine, AFTER 2.5 hours installing.

Btw, AntiVir isn't removed, still no problems.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Avex]

Hi,

I am a newbie (the only package i have used so far is Norton Internet Security 2004) with these things and would like to give this package a try. I have a refurbished laptop with no firewall or anti-virus scanner installed on it. With this F-Secure package, it seems i need to install it from the net. If it needs say 2.5 hrs for it to be installed and setup properly......does it mean my computer with be left un-guarded for this period?

Sorry.....i am new to these things and i don't know if i've made my question clear......

I would like to try this particular package......but am uncomfortable with the fact that i need to connect to the net, download and install this program without proper protection. Is there a way to solve this?

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " KAV engines have a real problem getting along with some programs. KAV is good at detection but , my programs are important to me. I find this to be very sad on their part . Especially AV makers . They should TRY to make their software compatible." }-
To make a software program compatible for all computers is impossible. The conflicts you are seeing on your system with KAV-based engines are based upon your unique software/hardware combinations on your computer(s).
-{ Quote: "This one is not. I know it works for some . Not on here though." }-
Precisely. KAV-based engines do not suit your system.
-{ Quote: "So, NOD, again,wins outright." }-
But your observations are only directly applicable to your system. Glad to hear that NOD suits you and your system. But F-Secure may suit other people and their machines much better than NOD! Let's not generalise and encourage people to try 'new' software.

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "Hi, I have a refurbished laptop with no firewall or anti-virus scanner installed on it. With this F-Secure package, it seems i need to install it from the net. If it needs say 2.5 hrs for it to be installed and setup properly......does it mean my computer with be left un-guarded for this period?" }-
Yes. But 2.5 hours download time is apparently for dial-up.
-{ Quote: "I would like to try this particular package......but am uncomfortable with the fact that i need to connect to the net, download and install this program without proper protection. Is there a way to solve this?" }-
Have you a friend/colleague who can download this package for you on a high-speed connection? Then you can burn the package to disc/flashdrive and install the program on your computer.

I would advise this anyway if you are restricted to dial-up.

Further, if you have a refurbished laptop, you may find, IME, the F-secure package quite 'heavy' on your computer.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Yes. But 2.5 hours download time is apparently for dial-up." }-I have 1 Gigs cable modem connection, but still 2.5 hrs.

Btw, not managed to get the Ad-Aware module updates yet.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "I have 1 Gigs cable modem connection, but still 2.5 hrs." }-
The server(s) must be very slow or busy :o

How is the RTM on resource/memory usage, FF? And will you be testing this AV against your malware collection?

[tsehov]

I just tried Shaw and I noticed it is really hungry for RAM: running with default settings it took a bit over 60MB RAM, it had 15 processes running. Of course it got a little lighter when I disabled Parental Control etc. (I did not install AD-Aware at all.)

It found 587 of my 594 (viruses and trojans) collection (on demand scan).

I suddenly returned to my F-Prot 3.16b. Though it finds 'only' 582 (+ 6 suspicious objects) of my collection it still eats about 6.7MB RAM.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "The server(s) must be very slow or busy :o

How is the RTM on resource/memory usage, FF? And will you be testing this AV against your malware collection?" }-I have said some weeks ago that my WinXP system is already a crap now, so I have lost my win task manager. Tried with CachemanXP, but just taking the snapshot, the CPU usage jumped up, normally it's 25 %. If this helps, so OK.

I've scanned the whole 2624 samples collection, couldn't rename, remove, or delete those archives, very big job to count each detected archived sample from logfile. Still already, I think that this has the best detection rate among those FREE av:s. ;D

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Am i missing something.
Isnt this for their customers only.
You have to give name and e mail address ,so if you are not will it be discontinued." }-


On their download page it says it is for their customers and possible future customers. That sounds as if it is a download for anyone that finds their web page to me.

bigc

[RAV]

I think you are misreading the terms and conditions of the offer. It states their "customers" and "new" customers. It does not state "future" customers. I would not use this package, but would rather pay for something legit when it comes to the security of my PCs. I would say that you are certainly stretching the spirit of the offer; although, they really should have limited registration to their current subscriber base to prevent this from leaking to the world.

I also can't image F-Secure wanting them to freely give their premium security suite away for free. I wouldn't use this suite even if it were free, it is such a resources hog; it dragged my system down to a crawl more than any other security suite that I tested. Only other thing that was close, was Panda.

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "does it mean my computer with be left un-guarded for this period?" }-

Unguarded? Its not like theres 40,000 viruses sitting outside your home waiting to invade. I can go months and months without an AV installed and not get an infection of any type, i'm sure a couple hours will be fine for you. Some people can take this whole thing to a new level of paranoia, don't be too scared.

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "I think you are misreading the terms and conditions of the offer. It states their "customers" and "new" customers. It does not state "future" customers. I would not use this package, but would rather pay for something legit when it comes to the security of my PCs. I would say that you are certainly stretching the spirit of the offer; although, they really should have limited registration to their current subscriber base to prevent this from leaking to the world.

I also can't image F-Secure wanting them to freely give their premium security suite away for free. I wouldn't use this suite even if it were free, it is such a resources hog; it dragged my system down to a crawl more than any other security suite that I tested. Only other thing that was close, was Panda." }-

Here it whatit says on their registration page for the f-secure. see screen shot

[bigc73542]

And when you finnish with the registration you get this screen.

[bigc73542]

And then you will have this

[hollywoodpc]

I have noticed that BlackCat likes to really over do it . BlackCat , I KNOW . I think I pointed out everything you wanted to point outr again . Please help people . Not me ok . Your remarks were a total waste of time . Thanks anyway and have a great day

regards

[hollywoodpc]

By the way . I never said , NOR did I imply , that AV makers should make their software compatible with everything . I wil not continue . My posts explain themselves .

[bigc73542]

I hear that people are having trouble downloading this av program. I don't know what the problem could be, I had it downloaded, installed, updated and configured in about twenty minutes.

bigc

[Marja]

Yeah, but the force is with you! I think I'm gonna skip it, but, am going to watch thread with interest - I, too, wonder why?

Thanks for your input, BigC and all you other brave souls!

[bigc73542]

The free av program from Shaw is just an advertising campaign to get the name of their Internet provider company out on the web. It is only a marketing scheme. It is legal and F-secure doesn't care if they give the av away seeing as how Shaw internet has paid Data Fellows for the use of the F-secure Products. Just thought I would mention these facts as there has been some questions as to why they would give it away or why F-secure would let them.

bigc

[Rogue_Hunter]

It's only fairly recently that Shaw decided to drop the cost for using this suite and make it free. Before when I was comtemplating signing up, it would have been $6.95 Canadian I believe a month to keep it running and such, oh and there's still always the chance they could charge people for using this, it's in their terms and services for the product.

»https://secure.shaw.ca/apps/shawsecure/License..
section D :

d. Shaw reserves the right to change its fees, including without limitation a right to charge a fee for the current free Shaw Secure Service at a later date but with notice to you.

[bigc73542]

There is always the chance that a free offer or a free av can start being charged for. That is part of what makes life interesting. But I will use it until they do decide to charge for it if they ever do. I really like the F-Secure Security Suite.

bigc

[Marja]

OK! Those both make sense now.

I mean, what did you expect with from people in a security forum? Blind Trust?!?:D

[hollywoodpc]

-{ Quote: "There is always the chance that a free offer or a free av can start being charged for. That is part of what makes life interesting. But I will use it until they do decide to charge for it if they ever do. I really like the F-Secure Security Suite.

bigc" }-
I have used it in the past Big C . It is nice . Just wish I could use it now as an on demand . Oh well . AVK did not do well on my system either . But that too , uses KAV right ? Thanks . And again , many thanks for you help

[bigc73542]

Having an av with three scan engines is interesting

[JayTee]

Hmm,

I was going to write to say that F-Secure works really smoothly with my system (INTC 2.8B GHz, 1GB RAM) when I read RAV's comments. I have KAV 5 and 6 Beta installed on my other machines (AMD64, 1 GB RAM and INTC 1.7A Ghz, 0.7 GB RAM) and I must say that the KAV's real time access slows down the apps which are opening, but not F-Secure.

Two negatives:
i) huge install over the net
ii) large memory requirements (but no impact on access)

[Infinity]

on my 3.4 prescott on an cable connection it was a 1,5 hour work to install, update, re-update, reboot twice...I uninstalled it immediately but kept my licence on a disc for the future...

I stick with nod32 with ewido, boclean and tds-3 on demand.

[waters]

I like it ,it doesnt slow my system down .
However i will have to remove it.
All runs fine untill i open it .If i go through the settings then update manually all goes well .
Then if i try to go on internet to google ,it takes ages to find .
After about 10 minuites all goes well again ,also rebooting cures .
I find i am ok all the time unless i go into settings,then after this i get long delay untill it finds internet.
Something must be going wrong with firewall.

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "I have 1 Gigs cable modem connection, but still 2.5 hrs.

Btw, not managed to get the Ad-Aware module updates yet.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-

After reading this I DL the program. I have DSL, and it took 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
FWIW
Jerry

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "FF? And will you be testing this AV against your malware collection?" }-Yes, I will. As I thought, eScan 5.1.2 beats this Shaw-secure 5.0.0 a bit, because F-secure doesn't use those "..._x" update URL:s, but it doesn't matter. Still excellent detection rate against my sample collection with this "Shaw-secure". This F-secure Ad-Aware module's database doesn't be included to the AV scanner's database, as it is with McAfee VSE 8.0i, I think.

Btw, ArcaVir and NOD signatures were updated on 7:th March 2005, the others on 14:th March 2005. No big skewness in the final result, max about 30, I think.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[JerryM]

I have often noticed the entry "NOD32 with AH".

What is AH?

I make this comment with a degree of "fear and trembling" ::) but in this and some other tests NOD32 was not even near the top AV. Yet NOD seems to be considered one of the two most effective AVs. Except in the area of trojans, NOD is poorest of the group. OH ME! Now I have done it.

The Shaw AV shows up extremely well.

Is the escan free the mwav module that only scans and in the case of the older version clelans, or is it another one?

Thanks,
Jerry

[Hyperion]

Can this Shaw get installed as on demand only or it requires some processes running anyway?Has anyone tried it that way?

And can more confirm that takes 60 MB RAM as one poster observed?What about CPU?

Thanks

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "I have often noticed the entry "NOD32 with AH".

What is AH?

I make this comment with a degree of "fear and trembling" ::) but in this and some other tests NOD32 was not even near the top AV. Yet NOD seems to be considered one of the two most effective AVs. Except in the area of trojans, NOD is poorest of the group. OH ME! Now I have done it.

The Shaw AV shows up extremely well.

Is the escan free the mwav module that only scans and in the case of the older version clelans, or is it another one?

Thanks,
Jerry" }-AH is the same as Advanced Heuristics and eScan Free is really that mwav which scans On-Demand only.

Actually NOD is quite good against trojan like malware nowadays. In my tests, NOD is even about on the same level as McAfee VSE 8.0i.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[JerryM]

Firefighter,

Thanks, and your work is really appreciated. There are various tests, and not all in agreement. I have a lot of confidence in yours.

I have the escan mwav in the last version that cleans as well as scans. I assume that the updates from KAV make it the equal of the newest versions. I realize that may be an incorrect assumption.

Thanks for the reply and all the help you provide here. Much of the time I don't have a clue as to the details of what is discussed. I would not recognize a Heuristic if it was served on a platter, but I do recognize the results which are published.

Jerry

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Firefighter,

I have the escan mwav in the last version that cleans as well as scans. I assume that the updates from KAV make it the equal of the newest versions. I realize that may be an incorrect assumption.

Jerry" }-I made a scan with eScan Free 4.4.7, which had signatures updated to version 5.1.2, and compared those results to the newest version 5.1.2 - no difference.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

Does anybody know if there is a hidden option to disable some of those (Shaw) F-secure engines, Kaspersky, Libra or Orion? I just want to test the Libra engine alone and the heuristic Orion engine alone too.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "I made a scan with eScan Free 4.4.7, which had signatures updated to version 5.1.2, and compared those results to the newest version 5.1.2 - no difference.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-

Good to know, and thanks.
Jerry

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "Does anybody know if there is a hidden option to disable some of those (Shaw) F-secure engines, Kaspersky, Libra or Orion? I just want to test the Libra engine alone and the heuristic Orion engine alone too.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-

No idea, but if you find it i'd like to hear. Because tests i've tried, and seen, seem to show those extra engines are pretty useless. F-Secure doesn't seem to score any higher than anything else that uses just the KAV databases and I when I found things KAV missed, F-Secure never once found them.

I'm dubious of their second and third engines to say the least.

[jlo]

Yes I agree with you that F-secure heavily relies on KAV engine but if they receive a virus sample before KAV (a fast spreading one) they sometimes add it to their own engine before they have imported KAV defs.

Cheers

Jlo

[Firefighter]

Just added those scorings that were missed my F-Secure av but detected by F-Secure Ad-Aware module to my last test table above.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[hollywoodpc]

Are we to take from this that escan free is awesome ?

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Are we to take from this that escan free is awesome ?" }-
What makes you think KAV engine is not awesome?

[hollywoodpc]

Excuse Firecat . Talk to someone else as you , obviously , cannot answer my question . Thank you in advance . My question is for anyone else that can answer it . Thank you

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Are we to take from this that escan free is awesome ?" }-F-secure doesn't use those "SuperSecure" updates of Kaspersky because they have more False Positives than the original update settings of Kaspersky. The main reason to that is because F-secure is focused mainly on corporate use where those FP:s can make a lot of harm. Still, against my samples, I think that those "_x" update settings aren't the main reason why F-Secure scored a bit lower than eScan but because the original Kaspersky updates (like eScan, when it has those "_x" update URL:s) are a bit faster than F-secure ones.

F-secure's strength seems to be among VIRUSES, where it is a bit better than Kaspersky, and they are more important in corporate environment too. Overall, all Kaspersky engined products can offer the top level protection available, where all other scanners have a lot of work to do anyhow.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[hollywoodpc]

Excellent . Thank you Fireguy .

[_anvil]

-{ Quote: " Still, against my samples, I think that those "_x" update settings aren't the main reason why F-Secure scored a bit lower than eScan but because the original Kaspersky updates (like eScan, when it has those "_x" update URL:s) are a bit faster than F-secure ones." }- This would only make sense, if some of your samples are extremely new (probably not more than one day old), because F-Secure usually gets the newest KAV-Sigs within this period of time. To test this, just redo the scan with F-Secure right now - in the meantime, F-Secure should definitely be up-to-date.

Furthermore, you could test KAV _without_ x-bases to measure the influence of those additional sigs.

In the end, I think the reason for F-Secure being a bit worse in your tests, is its inferior _archive_ unpack-engine (they once decided to make their own...) - imho this is the most suitable explanation that F-Secure scored worse than KAV in several tests in the past (and also than AVK... which uses KAVs archive unpack-engine).

That said, it is to be noted that test samples should never be in archives (be it ordinary "zip" or exotic "Win32 Ultra Shrink 2000 Plus" archive) in a proper detection rate test... ::)

[Firecat]

Its not very easy to put up a test like that and do testing and get your PC in risk, anvil. I personally see nothing wrong in putting samples in archives. Of course, I could be wrong, but putting in archives would only show off a better part of the AV as any AV out there can easily detect malware in files.

No offense towards anybody, but archiving can in no way affect any AV's performance. The file packers are meant for files only.

I feel the X-Bases might have a small difference here and there; F-Secure compensates by using Ad-Aware. Overall the two are very evenly matched and either one will get out in front from time to time.

The updates of KAV also play a big part in getting it out front.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Firecat

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "In the end, I think the reason for F-Secure being a bit worse in your tests, is its inferior _archive_ unpack-engine (they once decided to make their own...) - imho this is the most suitable explanation that F-Secure scored worse than KAV in several tests in the past (and also than AVK... which uses KAVs archive unpack-engine)." }-That may also be true, because some, not many, of my samples are already packed with different packers, which I have zipped again.

I used zipped samples only because I'm counting those detected ones from logfile. It's very hard to count detectings, because every scanner is reporting those detected ones differently, for example BitDefender may find 10 different files from one sample when an other scanner may find only one. It's quite easy to count detected archived samples compared that above. An other reason is that, when I move/delete/rename my infected archived samples, the rest that have been unchanced, are those missed ones.

One very interesting thing was those samples that were detected by Shaw Secure but missed by eScan Free 5.1.2. Those files were detected also by Command AV 4.92.8, has someone said that the Libra engine of F-Secure is their own, why then some F-Prot engined av was able to detect exact the same samples that were missed by an Kaspersky engined av as eScan Free? Even those names of Libra detected samples are the same as they are with F-Prot/Command AV.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

It seems Libra uses F-Prot database, even thought the engine itself might be F-Secure's own.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "It seems Libra uses F-Prot database, even thought the engine itself might be F-Secure's own." }-And there were some suspicious samples too, Shaw Secure (F-secure), Command AV and F-Prot were all capable to detect them too!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

The 'suspicious' samples shouln't have been detected by Libra as it is not a complete F-Prot engine. But what the heck lets just wait for some Pro to give his advice on this issue...:)

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "The 'suspicious' samples shouln't have been detected by Libra as it is not a complete F-Prot engine. But what the heck lets just wait for some Pro to give his advice on this issue...:)" }-My fault, I just corrected my former post.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Sputnik]

@Firefighter
I've been discussing about F-Secure's Libra engine any times already... The official statement at F-Secure is "Libra is NO F-Prot engine" they don't ever mention about the database...
Personally I think just like Firecat that F-Secure made their own engine using the F-Prot databases, maybe we can invastigate if the Libra and F-Prot update sequence are simular :)

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "My fault, I just corrected my former post.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-
But still...if all three AVs had a common heuristic name, its likely it came from Libra.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "@Firefighter
I've been discussing about F-Secure's Libra engine any times already... The official statement at F-Secure is "Libra is NO F-Prot engine" they don't ever mention about the database...
Personally I think just like Firecat that F-Secure made their own engine using the F-Prot databases, maybe we can invastigate if the Libra and F-Prot update sequence are simular :)" }-So, after all, they made it, a KIA with exact the same design and performance as Ferrari's. ;)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " I personally see nothing wrong in putting samples in archives. Of course, I could be wrong, but putting in archives would only show off a better part of the AV as any AV out there can easily detect malware in files. No offense towards anybody, but archiving can in no way affect any AV's performance. The file packers are meant for files only." }-
Simply looking at a scanner's log-files after archived malware testing is both very time consuming and inaccurate in terms of the actual number of detected samples. This is because in some situations, for example with packed malware, some AV's count the same sample twice.

The infected archive count using scan logs can therefore be much higher than the original malware sample size!!! Initially, I was very surprised by this result when I first started my amateur AV malware testing :o

Therefore it is better to scan the archive and allow the scanner to delete the recognised malware; then compare the number of remaining samples with the original malware collection size.

Now, IMHO, some AV scanners do have problems in scanning/deleting archived samples.
-{ Quote: "That said, it is to be noted that test samples should never be in archives (be it ordinary "zip" or exotic "Win32 Ultra Shrink 2000 Plus" archive) in a proper detection rate test." }-
Agree completely.
-{ Quote: "Its not very easy to put up a test like that and do testing and get your PC in risk" }-
Keep samples off your machine and any zipped samples collected from well-known VX sites can be extracted to a flash drive or equivalent to test an AV scanners detection rate ;)

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "So, after all, they made it, a KIA with excact the same design and performance as Ferrari's. ;)" }-
But nothing is wrong with a KIA, they use Huyendai (?) engines and just roll... Nothing special but a KIA car does what it has to do, without to much problems :P 8)

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Simply looking at a scanner's log-files after archived malware testing is both very time consuming and inaccurate in terms of the actual number of detected samples. This is because in some situations, for example with packed malware, some AV's count the same sample twice. " }-I agree! Actually I am counting different zip file sample names, if the rename/delete/move option is not possible. This is from Shaw Secure logfile and I counted that as ONE detection.

• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h\[From cij1999 ][Subject:[Users] Re:users,japanese girl VS playboy] Suspected infection: Exploit.HTML.FileDownload
• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h\[From cij1999 ][Subject:[Users] Re:users,japanese girl VS playboy]t13[1].scr Infection: Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h
• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h Suspected infection: Exploit.HTML.FileDownload

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "But nothing is wrong with a KIA, they use Huyendai (?) engines and just roll... Nothing special but a KIA car does what it has to do, without to much problems :P 8)" }-I agree that KIA is a very good choice. In Finland it has 5 year warranty to 150 000 kilometers. Only Huyndai can offer a bit better, 5 years without other limitations.

Probably my next car.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "I agree that KIA is a very good choice. In Finland it has 5 year quarantee to 150 000 kilometers. Only Huyndai can offer a bit better, 5 years without other limitations." }-
Indeed, that's very good... Huyndai has good cars as well...
I'll be happy to buy a 20 year old Lada next year :p but first searching for an appartment :)

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Indeed, that's very good... Huyndai has good cars as well...
I'll be happy to buy a 20 year old Lada next year :p but first searching for an appartment :)" }-Why to search an appartment when you can always live in an igloo. ;D

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[_anvil]

-{ Quote: "This is from Shaw Secure logfile and I counted that as ONE detection.

• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h\[From cij1999 ][Subject:[Users] Re:users,japanese girl VS playboy] Suspected infection: Exploit.HTML.FileDownload
• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h\[From cij1999 ][Subject:[Users] Re:users,japanese girl VS playboy]t13[1].scr Infection: Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h
• Worm_731\Email-Worm.Win32.Klez.h.zip\I-Worm.Klez.h Suspected infection: Exploit.HTML.FileDownload " }- Sorry, I don't really get it... ???
Is there more than one file in this archive? If yes, why?
You are supposed to test only the real Klez malware file (in this case, it seems to be a *.scr).
The rest seem to be exploits, which are to "deliver" the malware. Don't you have an own exploit section?

And again: why are your samples zipped at all? That is confusing and can falsify the results.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Sorry, I don't really get it... ???
Is there more than one file in this archive? If yes, why?
You are supposed to test only the real Klez malware file (in this case, it seems to be a *.scr).
The rest seem to be exploits, which are to "deliver" the malware. Don't you have an own exploit section?

And again: why are your samples zipped at all? That is confusing and can falsify the results." }-Because my samples are in my PC all the time, I don't want that my resident security programs are alarming me too often.

Over 95 % of my samples contains only one infected file, but because they were picked from virus collection sites, s...t happens. ???

This may falsify the total results a bit, but only towards a bit better detection rate among some not so good av:s.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "Why to search an appartment when you can always live in an igloo. ;D " }-
haha, nooo Igloo is too cold :P

[kloshar]

IT'S HYUNDAI, NOT HUYNDAI. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "IT'S HYUNDAI, NOT HUYNDAI. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D" }-I agree. My fault.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[abhi_mittal]

I tried this rebranded product on my Celeron M 1.5Ghz, 256 RAM Notebook PC. The product is genuine F-Secure Antivirus 2005. Its loaded with a Firewall, spam control, parental filters etc.
But, I found it to be a major resource hog. I feel it surpasses Norton. It adds a number of processes and consumes your RAM like crazy.
I recomend that users with fast processors and large memory (512MB) should stick with it.
Lower end machines cant cope with it.

Regards,
Abhishek

[no13]

-{ Quote: "haha, nooo Igloo is too cold :P" }-
Igloos are insulated and trap the heat withiun them, dude!

[Firefighter]

Just added Norman VC 5.80.02 with Sandbox to my test table in post 78. this thread. Detected 10 as "possible", 29 as "New unknown virus" and 93 by Sandbox.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Blackcat]

Is this good or bad compared to your other tested AV's, FF?

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Is this good or bad compared to your other tested AV's, FF?" }-To be honest, I expected more from Norman against viruses, trojan like detection was about that I expected.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

Unfortunately there was an calculating error in the last Norman trojan like detectings in post 78. The table should be.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[suebaby41]

-{ Quote: "I tried this rebranded product on my Celeron M 1.5Ghz, 256 RAM Notebook PC. The product is genuine F-Secure Antivirus 2005. Its loaded with a Firewall, spam control, parental filters etc.
But, I found it to be a major resource hog. I feel it surpasses Norton. It adds a number of processes and consumes your RAM like crazy.
I recomend that users with fast processors and large memory (512MB) should stick with it.
Lower end machines cant cope with it.

Regards,
Abhishek" }-

When I checked F-Secure Anti-virus on the anti-virus section, my copy said that it was 2004. I downloaded from the site Friday. I like the product and will keep it even if it is 2004.

[Sputnik]

@Firefighter
Are the results of Command AV the same as F-Prot? I heard they use the same engine, and since the results of Command AV in your test are just fine, F-Prot might get more interesting every day for me :)

[SDS909]

To Firefighter:

Can you add Dr.Web with its Spyware/Adware databases into the text mix? I think the extra database adds about 3,000+ more threats.

Thanks

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "@Firefighter
Are the results of Command AV the same as F-Prot? I heard they use the same engine, and since the results of Command AV in your test are just fine, F-Prot might get more interesting every day for me :)" }-Not tested F-Prot recently, but after that CSAV 4.92.8 found 40+ samples as suspious that were not in the original scanlog and were not deleted as the other detectings, I think that Command and F-Prot are now very close each other.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "To Firefighter:

Can you add Dr.Web with its Spyware/Adware databases into the text mix? I think the extra database adds about 3,000+ more threats.

Thanks" }-Unfortunately I don't have DrWeb licence anymore and my trial period has outdated, I just can't test DrWeb anymore. Before, it was better than Command or BitDefender with about 100 detectings.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[zfactor]

i did think nod would do better.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "Igloos are insulated and trap the heat withiun them, dude!" }-
True, but igloos only survive in very cold area's :P otherwise they melt... Moscow is cold enough for me ;)

[waters]

thought nod would do better.
It is good but others do better.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "i did think nod would do better." }-If the second largest AV-vendor scored 1563/1734, or 90.1 %, against my trojanlike samples, then NOD's result 1545/1734, or 89.1 %, is actually VERY good, absolutely the same level trojanlike protection than McAfee in this case.

You should wonder more likely, how do those McAfee people spend their working hours? ;)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "If the second largest AV-vendor scored 1563/1734, or 90.1 %, against my trojanlike samples, then NOD's result 1545/1734, or 89.1 %, is actually VERY good, absolutely the same level trojanlike protection than McAfee in this case.

You should wonder more likely, how do those McAfee people spend their working hours? ;)

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-
Oh, they just keep working 24 hours and they can work better b'coz of previous experience with McAfee support they dont get too many support calls :P :)

[hollywoodpc]

Hi FF .
I STILL do not understand this talk of trojans . If ya person cares so much about security and cares about tests , then that person HAS to have an AT as well . If that person does not , they need a brain scan . KAV is good . Why does it matter ? If someone takes the time to ask how good an AV is a detedting trojans , they NEED an AT as well .

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Hi FF .
I STILL do not understand this talk of trojans. If ya person cares so much about security and cares about tests, then that person HAS to have an AT as well. If that person does not, they need a brain scan. " }-Over 90 % of PC user's haven't even heard the word of trojan among malwares, why should they use an AT then? That's why a good trojan like detection with an AV is a MUST.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "Hi FF .
I STILL do not understand this talk of trojans . If ya person cares so much about security and cares about tests , then that person HAS to have an AT as well . If that person does not , they need a brain scan . KAV is good . Why does it matter ? If someone takes the time to ask how good an AV is a detedting trojans , they NEED an AT as well ." }-
I don't use serparate AT... F-Secure does enough, besides of that, how you get infected with a trojan anyway :P
Using the right browser/e-mail and a clear mind is good enough... F-Secure is there to back me in that :)

[Ianb]

What's the firewall like ? Has anybody tested it at shields up etc ? Does it protect against outgoing ?

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "What's the firewall like ? Has anybody tested it at shields up etc ? Does it protect against outgoing ?" }-
The firewall is ok, it passes all online tests... It's not very good at leaktests but it will protect you for all the other outgoing traffic... It has very fast filtering and I surf much faster with the F-Secure firewall then with ZA or Kaspersky...

[hollywoodpc]

Thanks FF .
But , I still do not understand . If 90 % don't know what a trojan is , why do they need an AV with good trojan detection . Is it because since they do not know about trojans , hence , they do not know about AT programs ? I guess that makes sense but , still goes back to the brain scan thing . They should learn ./ And Style . I am surprised you only use that AV for trojan protection . Thought you would use an AT . Again . Thanks FF . I think I kinda get it now . And hey . Whenever the timee comes around again . Since Arcavir is new , would love to see more tests on it . I use it . I like it . feels very strong in my real world tests . Thanks

[Ianb]

-{ Quote: "The firewall is ok, it passes all online tests... It's not very good at leaktests but it will protect you for all the other outgoing traffic... It has very fast filtering and I surf much faster with the F-Secure firewall then with ZA or Kaspersky..." }-

Thanks. Curiosity has got the better of me I think I'll give this a go.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "And Style . I am surprised you only use that AV for trojan protection . Thought you would use an AT ." }-
Well, I've a couple reasons why I don't use any AT:

1) Good AT programs wich can scan in realtime cost money wich I can't miss...
2) I never had any Trojan since I use the internet, I think you can get infected by using "fake" downloads, or by using the wrong browser (Internet Explorer :P)...

The AT scanners wich are free are only for on-demand scanning, maybe I should look at that once, but I feel no need too... F-Secure has a great trojan detection so I feel secure enough...

[bravesrule]

i wonder if this antivirus would work for my sister since she only has avast on her cpu

[RejZoR]

Can i use ShawSecure serial for F-Secure products(not rebranded)?
If so,where can you download full versions off F-Secure site? I can getr only trial (or do you just enter full product serial and it's working?).
I would need only antivirus,not complete suite.
Thx

[profhsg]

-{ Quote: "Can i use ShawSecure serial for F-Secure products(not rebranded)?
If so,where can you download full versions off F-Secure site? I can getr only trial (or do you just enter full product serial and it's working?).
I would need only antivirus,not complete suite.
Thx" }-

I don't know about using ShawSecure serial #s on F-Secure, but as far as F-Secure itself is concerned you can download the trial version and then enter your serial number.

[RejZoR]

Just tried and it doesn't work :( I'll try the Shaw package if i'll be able to turn of stuff that i don't need...

[Ned Slider]

-{ Quote: "Can i use ShawSecure serial for F-Secure products(not rebranded)?
If so,where can you download full versions off F-Secure site? I can getr only trial (or do you just enter full product serial and it's working?).
I would need only antivirus,not complete suite.
Thx" }-

The serial doesn't work with the Microsoft 6 month trial of F-Secure AntiVirus 2005 - I tried that (different products maybe). But it might work with the trial of the Internet Security 2005 product which is what this Shaw rebranded product is. A 1 month trial is available on the F-Secure website if you care to try - just enter the serial once installed.

http://www.f-secure.com/download-purchase/list.shtml

Ned

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "The serial doesn't work with the Microsoft 6 month trial of F-Secure AntiVirus 2005 - I tried that (different products maybe). But it might work with the trial of the Internet Security 2005 product which is what this Shaw rebranded product is.
Ned" }-No, doesn't work in there either, I've tried that with the Finnish version, but it doesn't matter so much for me.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Ned Slider]

-{ Quote: "No, doesn't work in there either, I've tried that with the Finnish version, but it doesn't matter so much for me.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-

Good to know - but I don't think it's an issue as the Shaw rebranded product doesn't appear to be cut down in any way from your excellent test results.

Good work!

Ned

[Firecat]

Hmm....All we need is a resident graphic artist to edit the HTML interface so it says F-Secure not shaw secure :P:)

[RejZoR]

No,i meant standalone app with only antivirus. This suite has so much "crap" that i'll never need. And why would i run 6 apps if i need only 1?
And turning off specific providers isn't the same (then i have yellow exclamation signs everywhere which is annoying).

[Ned Slider]

-{ Quote: "No,i meant standalone app with only antivirus. This suite has so much "crap" that i'll never need. And why would i run 6 apps if i need only 1?
And turning off specific providers isn't the same (then i have yellow exclamation signs everywhere which is annoying)." }-

Then try the 6 month trial of the F-Secure AV 2005 package linked from the Microsoft website. By the time it expires in 6 months, a 2006 version will probably be out and it'll be time to upgrade anyway.

Ned

[Thorny]

Yep, agree with Ned the Microsoft site gives you the option to just download the antivrus program ....http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/downloads/default.mspx

[maddawgz]

is it a set and leave firewall like pc cillian? ? regards md

[Edwin024]

there are some tweaks...not too many though ;)

[zfactor]

on the f-secure site it says microsoft users get 50% off the product , i clicked the buy button just to see how much it was and 64$ for just the antivirus?????? they are nuts and this is 50% off?? or am i missing something here thats just crazy if thats the price and even 50% off that at 32 is more than some charge normally??? i used the trial before not the 6 month on but a normal one and they said i already trialled the program so they will not issue me a new key

[Honyak]

It shows $64.00 and underneath it shows
**$32 50% discount.

Also I looked and the US price is $39.95.

http://www.f-secure.com/estore/usa/

Hope this helps

[Firefighter]

Unfortunately I had some updating problems during Shaw installing in my former test of Shaw Secure (= F-secure 2005). Here is the latest test table scanned today with all applications shown against my new 3649 infected archived samples. Of course Shaw was the real KING, but BitDefender made a huge step forwards.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

Please test ArcaVir too, PLEASE...:'( Firefighter

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Please test ArcaVir too, PLEASE...:'( Firefighter" }-Unfortunately my (trial)keyfile has expired.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunately my (trial)keyfile has expired.

Best regards,
Firefighter!" }-
Get a new one!!!!! :'(

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "Get a new one!!!!! :'(" }-I've tried to, but no success, even when I used several different email addresses and user names. Sorry! ;)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firecat]

OK I'll see if I can get one for you. And not a 14-day trial at that.

[Benvan45]

It is stated here about only being able to install the demoversion 'Once'.

Maybe after a very thorough regeistry clean, it will be possible again.

Registration is required to install a demo version of ArcaVir software. In the registration process you will receive a serial number.

Demo version can be installed only once and updated for 14 days.

[Firecat]

No...the serial keys are hard-coded with the expiry date, which means - a trial serial key issued today will expire in 14 days no matter how much you wipe your hard disk or clean the registry.

Regards,
Firecat

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "No...the serial keys are hard-coded with the expiry date, which means - a trial serial key issued today will expire in 14 days no matter how much you wipe your hard disk or clean the registry.

Regards,
Firecat" }-But you can always reinstall your Windows and then you are able to install them again! ;D

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "Please test ArcaVir too, PLEASE...:'( Firefighter" }-
FF has, and not too long ago; http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=69731&page=2&pp=25&highlight=arcaVir
-{ Quote: " OK I'll see if I can get one for you. And not a 14-day trial at that." }-
If by this you mean that you may be able to get StormByte to 'donate' a copy of ArcaVir to FF for his testing I am sure he will appreciate it ;)

[jedisb]

I got the following in my email this morning:


-{ Quote: "Dear Shaw Internet Customer,

Thank you for using our Shaw Secure product. To continue enjoying the benefits and features of Shaw Secure, we require additional information to validate your subscription.

Please visit our registration page at https://secure.shaw.ca/apps/shawsecure/SignUp.aspx to re-register so that we can receive more complete subscription information.

It is important to note that users who choose not to validate their subscription may not be able to continue using Shaw Secure.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Shaw High Speed Internet Team" }-

Now the re-registration process requires a Shaw account number.

This is highly decptive and appears to me to be a marketing ploy to draw people to the Shaw site (to attract new business) and then pull the rug out from under them. Not to mention that the email subject has nothing to do with Shaw Secure but has a generic topic of "Service Improvement Announcement". This could cause other users of Shaw Secure to completely miss the re-registration request. Imagine their suprise when their license suddenly expires and their machine is left vulnerable!! And all this simply because Shaw most likely made a mistake in offering the product to people outside of its registered users.

It would seem to me that a less publicity damaging solution would be to let those non-customers that downloaded the program continue using it.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "If by this you mean that you may be able to get StormByte to 'donate' a copy of ArcaVir to FF for his testing I am sure he will appreciate it" }-

I have sent in the request long ago, but stormbyte's missing ???

[ted]

anyone else's sub expire?

[trickyricky]

Yes. I downloaded the suite in March and never installed it, but I've since had a couple of emails from Shaw to the effect that I need to re-register for Shaw Secure with my Shaw account details otherwise my subscription will expire. Since I'm not a Shaw customer, it would seem that I'm unable to re-register, which is contrary to what the original sign-up conditions suggested.

[Infinity]

Yep, I had been reading it very closely, we didn't had to be a Shaw customer for using it lol it was fun till it lasted ;)