AVG Pro or F-Prot

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by aagfr, Aug 11, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aagfr

    aagfr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Posts:
    56
    I've been using AVG Pro v.7 for quite some time, but I sense from reading this and other forums that it is not highly regarded. I have an older computer, 500mhz, 384 RAM, Win XPSP2. I have had no problems with AVG and it doesn't seem to slow down my comp. I've tried KAV 5 and NOD32, but neither agreed with my setup; NOD32 slowed the computer down considerably (suprisingly, since I've read that it was light on resources), and KAV and my Sygate FW did not get along re its updating. KAV also appeared to slow things down a bit.

    I note that F-Prot does not have an email scanner, but it seems to have a reputation for having a higher detection rate.

    I am test driving F-Prot and it, like AVG, has little if any impact on resources. I'm wondering if anyone has a recommendation between the two. Is an antivirus without an email scanner safe? If so, why do so many of the others include email scanners?
    Thank you.
     
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,729
    Location:
    Texas
    F-Prot is a highly regarded antivirus program. It's been around a long time.
    Light on resources, fast, with good detection rates.
    It is compatible with sp2 today.
    F-prot will be coming out with a new version soon. It will give you more options as far as the real time scanner.
    Email scanning is not necessary IF you configure your email program correctly.

    Antivirus programs can give a false sense of security depending on your online habits. There are people that don't even use a real time or resident scanner and do not get viruses. Safe computing practices should be first in whatever you do online.

    I use F-Prot as an on demand scanner. And also just because I like the program.
     
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I agree,F-Prot is one of the best antiviruses out there. Low resources usage and high detection capability.
     
  4. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    F-Prot without a doubt...
     
  5. aagfr

    aagfr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Posts:
    56
    Thanks for the feedback. Can't help but notice the lack of AVG defenders. I use Firefox and Thunderbird; I guess that's a step forward in safe computing. We'll see. I never got infected while using AVG, but then again I don't remember it ever having caught one. I also use adaware, spy sweeper, spywareblaster and spybot; and I stay away from the obviously dangerous sites. So, maybe my surfing habits are pretty safe.
    Thx again.
     
  6. Tinribs

    Tinribs Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Posts:
    734
    Location:
    England
    I've used F-Prot for years and can highly recommend it, if you are happy after the trial and can afford to purchase then you'll be making a fine decision. :)
     
  7. Pigman

    Pigman Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    381
    F-Prot. Though you might be interested in Command as well - it's cheaper and uses the same engine.
     
  8. someone

    someone Guest

    I have used F-Prot for some time and do not mean to knock it excessively. However, I have lost a lot of confidence in it recently because it lacks serious unpacking capabilities. As a result, it always seems to be far behind my backup scanners (Extendia AVK and the free Ewido Security Suite) in detecting malware.

    We are told that this (and other) problems will be remedied in version 4. However, I have been hearing talk of a version 4 for Windows for a VERY long time. It would be nice is an actual product was forthcoming sometime in my lifetime.

    Having never used AVG Pro, I cannot compare it to F-Prot.
     
  9. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Command doesn't use the same scan engine as f-prot. it is an f-prot scan engine but it is the f-prot professional version. F-prot is just the 3.14 standard engine. ;)
     
  10. aagfr

    aagfr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Posts:
    56
    Do you mean that Command is a kind of "F-Prot Pro" and is therefore superior in its abilities or additional features? and cheaper too?

    I can't seem to get the Command site to reveal to me the features of the program its attemping to sell. Both are relatively inexpensive $19.95 and $29.00. I guess I'll continue my trial of F-Prot for a couple of weeks, and then trial Command.
     
  11. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Command does have features that f-prot doesn't. It is better with trojans and worms and it does have an unpacker. IMO it is a better av than f-prot. and f-prot is very good. And command is very low in resource usage.
     
  12. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    My little complain, The command Av site is it real badly design or ? Ican't find a trial version to download. And it is real hard to navigate around it. It seems to offer little information about it. Edit : i find it......... hide in Support -

    Does F- Prot have Professional Version. Why it wasn't listed on its website?

    Don't know why i didn't like command very much. So i will now just stick to F-Prot and wait for version 4.
     
  13. aagfr

    aagfr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Posts:
    56
    @iwod
    I'm with you. The Command site is a complete mess. I cannot find the trial download either. It may be great software, but it's no wonder hardly anyone knows about it - doesn't exactly instill confidence. I guess for $20 I'll try it anyway.
     
  14. wings

    wings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    53
    I have the same descission to make like you, I also need a different scanner.
    I've used AVG all the time, but it's not good enough anymore. I started to use KAV (which is really good), but it's a bit slow. So I decided to try F-Prot, since I read all the time that it's quite fast and that it has good detection rates. Mmm... and now that's my problem. I let it scan two files with virused that I found in a newsgroup; F-Prot didn't see any virus in both of them! Neither did AVG. KAV found both.

    I think F-Prot sucks!
     
  15. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    What format are they in? Are they packed in a archieve or what? Please give more details, as i am interested. What is the description detected in KAV?
     
  16. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
  17. wings

    wings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    53
    One file contains Backdoor.SubSeven.215 and the other one is Backdoor.Hackarmy.gen (confirmed by both KAV 5.0.149 and a trial of Dr.Web 4.31b)

    These are just the most recent viruses I found in a newsgroup and none are detected by F-Prot... shocking to say the least. But then again, not even AVG 7.x found these viruses.

    I made sure that full options were on in F-Prot; check all files, all heuristic options on, look inside archives, etc.

    Btw, I exctracted both files out of the zip file they were in, to make sure that this hadn't anything to do with it. But even as a plain .exe and .scr they weren't recognised as viruses.

    I borrowed a testbed of a few 10,400 (!) viruses of a friend on mine, did a test and it comfirmed again; F-Prot recognised 470 less than KAV.
    Maybe only 4%, but still.

    Seems to me that F-Prot recognises a lot of old viruses (testbed), but has a harder time to find the most recent ones.

    I agree, I'm not a professional tester, but as a network administrator who has to deal with security for the last 17 years one can expect to set op a reasonable trustworthy test.

    Oh, well, these results are just my $0,02, spend them the way you want to spend them, I'm going to look for something better than F-Prot.
     
  18. wings

    wings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    53
    ...nah, I think I stay with Kav. Maybe it's a bit slow (but then again, I will get a 4 times faster computer in a few months), but it does find more viruses than anything else.

    I tested it myself with 11,000 viruses, I read reviews

    http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=693
    http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=757
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_02xx.php

    and a lots of other reviews and when I add it all up, I come to only one conclusion;

    KAV is the best in almost any area (except for speed)

    And Alternate Data Streams? Mmm, I did some heavy reading about it and my opinion is that it does ZERO harm. It's just a simple tag like "KAVSYNC" or something like that, who cares. Every file on my PC has this tag and I'm running lots of programs at the same time (now for days also with SP2) and I seldom have problems with my PC.

    KAV scores high and that's all what counts. All that reading of articles in forums can be very confusing; some really know what a scanner is capable of, but lots of people really talk nonsense (often fueled by emotions). It was more of a challenge for me to figure who the smart guys were, than finding the best virus scanner! :D
     
  19. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Trojan detection is not one of F-Prot's strong points. So if you are surfing sites such as newsgroups, it has been recommended here that you run a good Antitrojan program alongside it; https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=24643&highlight=F-Prot

    F-prot is a good AV and a sound choice if you practise safe-hex. However, as with a number of other AntiVirus programs, trojan detection needs to improve.

    Incidentally, I did a quick search over at VGrep and Frisk seems (now) to detect these malware;

    1. Backdoor Subseven as W32/Subseven.215A; http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/vgrep/vgrep.cgi?terms=backdoor.subseven.215&product=0

    2. Backdoor. Hackarmy.( Backdoor-AZV gen ) recognises two variants; w32/Hackarmy.I & J; http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/vgrep/vgrep.cgi?terms=Backdoor-AZV.gen&product=0

    So maybe the samples you collected were new variants?

    Overall, care must be taken when using Internet newsgroups. Particularly when downloading and unzipping files from these areas. NO AV, including F-Prot or even Kaspersky can give you complete protection in these sites.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
  20. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    Out of a matter of interest does NOD32 detect it? And any one know about my Question on F Prot Professional......
     
  21. aagfr

    aagfr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Posts:
    56
    Jeez, Wings - now you've done it. How did all this become so difficult? I spent less time deciding who to marry. I'm just going to use the one that works best for me now, and quit obsessing over this. Informed folk here and elsewhere say f-prot and command are fine avs. I'll try both, see which I like better and buy it. Then, I'll have more time to spend with the woman I married 33 years ago.

    Blackcat- Thx for the links to the trial download of Command AV:

    http://www.authentium.co.uk/support/downloads/testdrives/index.cfm

    http://www.commandcom.com.au/try/try_before_you_buy.html
     
  22. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    dear wings, its not new that some trojans are missed by an antivirus where KAV picks them up. thats why KAV is so popular among us who doesn't want to spend extra bucks on anti-trojan. FYI somedays ago i checked a certain file with KAV, NOD32 (also with AH) and F-Prot. guess what it was, one of those million bugs named as trojan.downloader.xx and only F-Prot flagged it as SUSPICIOUS. Blackcat is right about those newsgroups. you should submit those bugs.

    dear aagfr, sounds nice to be togather for such longtime. wish you all the best.
     
  23. Benvan45

    Benvan45 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Posts:
    556
    That's the best statement I've read here now. That goes for every AV...!!!!

    If you don't practice safe-hex.......you have a problem, no matter what AV you use. Nobody should think.....I have Nod32 and that's the armour against everything! No way!!!!! Same with NAV.....people think it has all the bells and whistles and I'm all right!!!!

    Wrong thinking! A good tested AV, light and auto updating is perfect when practising safe-hex. You don't need the famous, fast scanning number one packages like Nod, Kav etc.

    ;) Putin
     
  24. Robyn

    Robyn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,189
    I am using AVG Pro at the present time. Thankfully I have never had a virus and was quite happy using it until this week. I have purchased a new Efficient Networks Router and have issues with the fact that AVG uses 127.0.0.1 as its personal e-mail scanner - this seems to be used with my router firewall set to High as I cannot receive e-mails unless I set my router to Medium. The medium setting is still fully stealthed but it has caused me to question if I should change to an AV which automatically scans e-mails without having to set the PE Scanner to 127.0.0.1. My Netgear allowed e-mails no matter what level but the new one is very strong when set to high.

    I have a powerful computer so resources are not 'really' a concern but if I change I would really like to choose the best AV as I do see the support for AVG is not as great on this forum as on others. NOD - KAV etc are all very new to me therefore this post is very interesting but I still do not know which is considered the best. o_O
     
  25. wings

    wings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    53
    C'mon hey, of course I know that some viruses will be missed.
    I'm not deciding for KAV because of these 2 backdoors ha! Btw, I both considered them suspicious and I just wanted to know what was inside. :D I mean, some common sense eh... somebody had time to write a 24k (!) screensaver of Saddam commiting suicide and it wasn't even on any news. Not to mention that you find it in a newsgroup. So often it's better to be a good virus scanner yourself.
    The point is that KAV recognizes most viruses and works well in several areas. I mean, what's the use of F-Prot when I also have a to buy an extra Trojan scanner? Don't forget, F-Prot also doesn't score well when it comes to worms, so do I need an extra scanner for that too? How much more bloated can you make your system?

    And you know what? I rather have a virus than a backdoor! (I got a good backup, physically separated, so I don't worry too much viruses)
    Do some people really have any clue what kind of scary scenario it is when a trojan or backdoor does manage to make connection with the outside world without you knowing it, regardless the virus scanner/firewall you use?
    That someone is spying on you without you knowing it!! :eek:
    Tell that my wife who has an online business...

    But F-Prot also has the most false alarms, KAV has none. See, I really don't feel like trying to figure out what's false or not. Also KAV is the only one who does inform me about all kind of hacking attempts on some web sites. F-Prot or AVG stay too quiet. I don't feel comfortable with that.

    AMRX, you come up with the example of F-Prot marking a file as suspicious when others didn't. Is that to make us believe as if F-Prot isn't that bad?
    My dear friend, a single example is not convincing, not even 5, it's the percentages that are important!

    I tested 11,000 files and F-Prot detected 440 less than KAV; that's 4%.
    I compared my results with results of online tests and they somehow confirmed the results.


    No you make it yourself difficult. You focus too much on forums and not enough on own experiences (trial software) or professional reviews. That's why you are getting more and more confused. First of all you don't know whether you're dealing with an amateur or pro, you don't know whether you can believe them (some people say stupid things when they are emotional) and sometimes you'll read information that is several months old.

    The best example is a test (if you want to call it...) done by a user named Kobra at DSLreports.
    He only used 320 viruses, didn't say how he tested and suddenly everybody wants to have MKS_Vir ha! They even copied his list to other web sites, without mentioning who wrote it and under what kind of circumstances. They also don't add the link to DSLreports, so that others can read what his fellow board members had to say about his test. What if he has used nothing but Trojans? In that case F-prot wouldn't have scored well. What if 90% of his viruses were dialers... get the point? Now thake for example Sophos, it scored 15% detection rate. I'm sorry, that's way too funny. Several other tests have proven that it has a general detection rate of > 90% (like most scanners).

    See, a lot of people are stupid. They see a list like that and but don't take the time to sit down and look at it with an open mind (did anyone visit the links I provided? Not many did on other boards.... get the point ;) ). If you refuse to do that, then you most definitely create confusion for yourself aagfr.

    There is for example nothing confusing about KAV for example; KAV 5.0.149 is stable and has the highest detection rates.
    Only reason not to choose KAV would be;

    - slow speed
    - ADS tags (they are no big deal, believe me ;) )

    That's a bull argument. Everyone who has a scanner (even if it's KAV) and who has some brains is very careful with doubtful files, so that shouldn't be an argument to try F-Prot anyways, that doesn't make sense.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.