F-Prot - Automatic Clean?

I'm considering F-Prot for a small server at low risk for infection, no email setup and very limited internet use, just as a common sense precaution. I've checked it out on their website, but I'm not clear as to whether it can deal with most problems by automatically cleaning or deleting using the 'real time protection'... without needing user choice at the time. OS is W2k sp4. Other recommendations would be welcome for the purpose, particularly if F-Prot doesn't have that capability. Considering P-Prot because of low resource use and don't need any program capabilities other than anti-virus... I'm familiar with Nod32, and use it some on my own computer, it's another possibility. Will probably run either Bo Clean or Trojan Hunter, as well as using Spywareblaster, in addition to the antivirus, but everything needs to be self-maintaining as much as possible.

Thanks for any info or recommendations... QuinnK

 

I've never used it but I hear Command AV will do what you need. It uses the F-Prot engine and I guess it's relatively inexpensive.

 

Did something of a quick check on CSAV and it sounds like it may add the capabilities to F-Prot to make it work for my purpose. I will do some more research on it, but any info or recommendations are still most welcome!

I appreciate the responses... Quinn

 

I have used command for quite a while and it is a very good av, it does use the f-prot professional scan engine good hueristics and very good detection rates. I think you would like it. And it will automatically delete malware

 

This is the settings in real time scan

 

@ bigc- No offense but where is that information available? The F-Prot site makes no mention of a PRO version. If there is one, I might like to buy a license.

@QuinnK- I agree with ronjor totally. You should pose your question to F-Prot tech support. Tech Support at F-Prot is fast, responsive, helpful, friendly, effective. VERY few AV companies even come close.

 

Here is one of many sites that give information on command and the f-prot scan engine. command uses a combination of the f-prot prof. engine and commands own engine merged into one.

http://www.google.com/search?q=f-pr...engine&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Again, NO offense but posting a copy of Authentium/Command's own advertising blurb doesn't really answer my question.

I inquired at F-Prot about a PRO version, & they had no idea what I was talking about. They replied that ALL versions of F-Prot are listed HERE. No more. No less.

Command uses the F-Prot engine, right? Is Authentium/Command saying that THEIR F-Prot engine is somehow superior to the engine in F-Prot itself? If so, I would think that some further substantiation is needed.

 

F-secure also used to use the f-prot professional engine. F-prot never used the pro engine, it was the one that they licensed to other av companies so they were able to modify it easier than trying to do the standard f-prot engine. There were quite a few av's that used the f-prot engine. The command engine is a lot different than the f-prot engine that is used by f-prot. command has added a lot to it, such as their own trojan detection plus a few more things. I am not trying to sell command just trying to answer your question.

 

here is more reference to the f-prot professional

 

And here is another

 

If the PRO engine exists, and if it is truly superior (as your posts repeatedly infer), then why would F-prot license it to others & not use it in their own product?

Your posts seem to assert that Command's erstwhile PRO version of F-Prot is better than F-Prot itself, but where can I read about any of these statements except in Command's own advertising copy? Where can I find tests showing that Command's engine or protection is superior to F-Prot -- or is even consistently its equal?

 

Well I attempted to give you a few examples that the f-prot engine in fact did exist. Even after I posted a screen shot from the f-secure site you still insinuated that you still don't believe that it exists. Well it does exist and as you said f-prot told you that it didn't exist I can only guess why. And as to why I keep saying that commands detection across the board is better is because of the modifications that command has added. If you want more information on this issue google holds all the info you could ever want if you ask the right questions. I don't believe I will post anymore on the subject in this thread as it is not my job to sell authentiums products, but I will state that I use it and am very satisfied with it. I hope some of the info I posted will be of some use to someone.

surf safe
bigc

 

Check 13 passes, 16 fails for Command at VirBull, as contrasted to
11 passes, 7 fails for F-Prot.

Plus, take note HERE that Command bowed out of the tests for server protection {which is what the originator of this thread asked about} whereas F-Prot did not.

Problem is that Command rarely gets tested, whereas F-Prot is almost always tested. Therefore, comparisons between F-prot & Command are somewhat rare. In THIS 2003 test, F-Prot detected 92.92% of the test bed. Command only caught 87.09%. Rokop for some reason doesn't test Command. Neither does AV-comparatives.

Here is Blackcat's comment about CSAV. It says CSAV is "excellent" -- a statement with which I heartily agree. Better yet, Blackcat manages to extol the virtues of CSAV without quoting Authentium ad copy, or inferring that CSAV's F-prot engine has some special ingredient that isn't available in F-prot itself.

A further comment by the estimable Blackcat warrants mention...

All this notwithstanding, I TOTALLY agree with bigc that CSAV is a really really good AV -- one of the very best, in fact.

 

Ya' all inspired me to do some reading about your little debate over the pro non pro thing and I just thought I would share with you what I found out. After reading many documents many pre 1995 (some took forever to find, heck I got some from the Ohio University Archives) it kinda explains it.

In the early 90's Command Antivirus for Windows was actually called Command F-Prot Professional, and F-Secure Antivirus was called Data Fellows F-Prot Professional (this was before they added the kaspersky engine, that was prolly why they changed their name later.) The Professional F-Prot engine (which does exist) was only a marketing thing. The Pro engine and the Frisk (original) engine are actually identical, just re-branded by company’s that include it in their products (but not all did: DataProt, Yui Kee Co. Ltd. to name two). Their detections are for the most part the same with a few exceptions. Both F-Secure and Command added and few more options to the their versions of the product making it more feature rich than the Frisk (original).
Also, both F-Secure and Command chose to take the liberty and maintain their own virus researchers to add on to the Frisk (F-prot) virus definitions. For these two reasons I believe is the reason the whole pro thing came about, but has little to do with anything today. Why Command and F-Secure choose to continue to call it F-Prot Professional even though the whole Professional thing was dropped over 5 years ago is beyond me! whew... I hope I made sense and hope everything I read was accurate! Best wishes guys!

edit: name correction

 

I wonder if the high number of fails from VB have to do with Command adding their own heuristics to the f-prot engine and causing a false positive. I understand that even one false positive results in a failed score. I really don't know for sure but thats my guess.

 

That could be! Because one of th additions Command (not part of the actual engine though) made was the addition of HaloCheck heuristics which runs along side the F-Prot engine.

 

Superb job of research, with findings clearly & succinctly stated. I have learned from you. Many thanks.

 

Thanks everyone, for the research and information on Command and F-Prot. Bigc, I appreciate your input as a user of Command... I got the impression you weren't saying the basic recognition capabilities of the Command version of the F-Prot engine were particularly any better, but that added features to the F-Prot engine by Command (Authentium) make a more 'feature rich' package that might make Command more desirable to some users than the more basic F-Prot being marketed. A matter of choice and need... but, in fact, I think your suggestion that the added feature capabilities of the Command version might make it more suitable for my purpose are correct. At this point, I think Command will likely be my choice.

Much appreciation... Quinn

Edit: Special thanks for the screenshots... very helpful.

 

In that case you can pick it up here for only $20 http://www.authentium.com/store/index.cfm

 

Thanks hbkh... that's exactly what I just did... Quinn