F-Secure Client Security - Mini-Review

[Sputnik]

Hello again, here's a short review from me again :P Since more people are using F-Secure the last weeks (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=70679) I thought it would be nice to write a little review...

Installation:
As easy as it can get, F-Secure offers web installers but offline installers as well, you can mail their support for the proper links for every version.
The installation progress just runs fine, and within 2/3 minutes you're up and running... The AV doesn't need any reboot, if you install the firewall as well you need to reboot your system.

First run:
At the first run F-Secure needs to update his three (!!!) engines. This first time it may take awhile, but after that updates are little and fast to load. F-Secure uses Backweb framework for updates. This has many advantanges, like high encrypion transfers, and validation checkums...
The interface is very clear and clean... Everybody will find his way in it, the exellent help function will help you to configure F-Secure to your needs...

Let's scan:
Let's scan my windows partition... The scanning speed is not one of the fast preformers (11000 files to scan takes around 12 minutes), but it has the same speed as Kaspersky on my system, wich is still good if you consider F-Secure uses three engines....
I've a little collection (21665 samples, frozen in mid february) and packed them with multiple packers (NeoLite, UPX ect.) F-Secure detected all of them... Ofcource you can't use my samples for a real testing, but it's interesting to see it can look in all the compressed .exe's...

Recource usage:
I hope we can't expect a puppy like F-Prot here :P... F-Secure is kinda process hungry, but uses a reasonable amount of Ram and the CPU usage remains very well on my 2200+ (max 4% when copy things to/from a USB HDD)...
01) F-Secure Automatic Update.exe
02) fsgk32st.exe
03) fsgk32.exe
04) fssm32.exe
05) fsbwsys.exe
06) FSMA32.exe
07) FSMB32.exe
08.) FCH32.exe
09) FAMEH32.exe
10) FIH32.exe
11) FSAV32.exe
12) FNRB32.exe
13) fsdfwd.exe
14) FSM32.exe
15) fsguiexe.exe
(Using around ~18mb - ~25mb on my system. Running both AV and Firewall.)
I don't feel any slowdown in windows or when playing games... Only on windows startup it takes a little longer...

Detection:
What can we say here, just superb detection... The power of Kaspersky with Libra (modified F-Prot) and Orion (F-Secure made)...

Final thoughts:
F-Secure is a very nice product... It just works, does what it sais and has a very professional look and help function... Everything is consistend (the GUI, messages ect.)
I recommend you to use a trial first to see how F-Secure runs on your system. Also it's quite expensive to buy, but there will be price lowerings F-Secure speaksman said, so I'm curious... Why should you choose for F-Secure? Well if you want top detection, a super secure update method, good support... Besides of that, it's your own choice, and own personal preference...

(Updates to this review to be expected later, due a lack of time...)

[Firecat]

Nice review. I'll take a closer look later.

[Sputnik]

F-Secure "eating" some of my samples...

[Ned Slider]

Nice mini-review StyleWarz :)

Can you tell me, did you have any problems running F-Secure and Kaspersky together?

Ned

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "Can you tell me, did you have any problems running F-Secure and Kaspersky together?" }-
There's no need to run them together since the Kaspersky engine (= AVP) is included in F-Secure...

[Edwin024]

I know that F-Secure is good, I have used it myself too. But don't be sure that using KAV in a package means that it is just as good as KAV. There is for instance eScan which scores worse than KAV, even when it has the KAV engine on board...

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "I know that F-Secure is good, I have used it myself too. But don't be sure that using KAV in a package means that it is just as good as KAV. There is for instance eScan which scores worse than KAV, even when it has the KAV engine on board..." }-
Well, F-Secure has at least the same results as KAV gives... The biggest plus at F-Secure is that they have faster respond times to big threats then Kaspersky, an important plus to me...

[hollywoodpc]

There is something that needs to be pointed out here . F-Secure , in total , used 34 mb s on my computer . Just sitting in the background . My machine is a 2.6 with 1024 ram . And BOY could I feel it . Web pages opening slower than I am usewd too . Email checking took forever . Slows everything down . It may be good but , 34 mb ? No way . Not here . This is a big issue . And needs to be looked at .

[Honyak]

-{ Quote: "There is something that needs to be pointed out here . F-Secure , in total , used 34 mb s on my computer . Just sitting in the background . My machine is a 2.6 with 1024 ram . And BOY could I feel it . Web pages opening slower than I am usewd too . Email checking took forever . Slows everything down . It may be good but , 34 mb ? No way . Not here . This is a big issue . And needs to be looked at ." }-

I see others posting with the resource issue, but I am running on an AMD 1GHz, 512 ram and no slowdown whatsoever. It runs almost as light as DrWeb when I trialed it did. It is funny how these AV's effect comps differently.

EDIT: I have F-Secure set on high too.
ArcaVir consumes many mb's but with little effect on performance also.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "I see others posting with the resource issue, but I am running on an AMD 1GHz, 512 ram and no slowdown whatsoever. It runs almost as light as DrWeb when I trialed it did. It is funny how these AV's effect comps differently." }-
Indeed, down here F-Secure works just light too... It feels faster then McAfee Enterprise, Arcavir ect... It's weird indeed how different av's run on different computers....

(I attached a picture of my on-access settings.)

[liang_mike]

I am running F-Secure Client Security on PIII 1Ghz / 512MB laptop. It is performing very well here. I don't mind the memory usage, as long as the CPU usage is low.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "I know that F-Secure is good, I have used it myself too. But don't be sure that using KAV in a package means that it is just as good as KAV. There is for instance eScan which scores worse than KAV, even when it has the KAV engine on board..." }-
Yes eScan score less than KAV because it has lesser updates than KAV and also you get the updates later than KAV.

[Edwin024]

-{ Quote: "There is something that needs to be pointed out here . F-Secure , in total , used 34 mb s on my computer . Just sitting in the background . My machine is a 2.6 with 1024 ram . And BOY could I feel it . Web pages opening slower than I am usewd too . Email checking took forever . Slows everything down . It may be good but , 34 mb ? No way . Not here . This is a big issue . And needs to be looked at ." }-

I have a small question, just for the fun of it :)

Which browser do you use. Let's pressume it's Firefox... well, that is a hungry mother too. You see it climb every few seconds to enormous hights.. But do you stop using it? I guess not... It all depends on what you want and what is there.

[hollywoodpc]

I use IE . I think FF is poor . My opinion only . Bottom line is , I tried it and it runs too heavy for me . I like NOD anyway . And Arcavir is excellent here too ! And Style , I had scan ALL files in real time . Should not have made a difference though

[hollywoodpc]

-{ Quote: "I have a small question, just for the fun of it :)

Which browser do you use. Let's pressume it's Firefox... well, that is a hungry mother too. You see it climb every few seconds to enormous hights.. But do you stop using it? I guess not... It all depends on what you want and what is there." }-
If something uses the kind of resources I mentioned , IT comes off . PERIOD ! For an AV , there is no reason for it . As you see , only on some computers . Mine happens to be one .

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "I use IE . I think FF is poor . My opinion only . Bottom line is , I tried it and it runs too heavy for me . I like NOD anyway . And Arcavir is excellent here too ! And Style , I had scan ALL files in real time . Should not have made a difference though" }-
Using IE??? WTF, that's asking for troubles my friend ;) Now I understand why you need plenty security, IE is like a hole cheese :P (take a look at Opera or something...)

Well All files or Definied files can make a big difference... and abart from that it makes no sense scanning all files in realtime :)