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

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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!

 

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!

 

Good to know, and thanks.
Jerry

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

What makes you think KAV engine is not awesome?

 

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

 

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!

 

Excellent . Thank you Fireguy .

 

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...

 

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

 

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!

 

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!

 

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!