F-Prot or F-Secure...

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by dsr_sp, Jul 27, 2004.

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

    dsr_sp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Posts:
    8
    Location:
    S?o Paulo/SP - Brasil
    Which one is better? F-Prot or F-Secure? And is NOD32 better than both?

    Regards,
    Daniel
     
  2. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    1. F-secure
    2. F-prot
    3. NOD32

    But there is a difference in memory usage. F-secure takes lot more memory than f-prot or nod32. But this is normal, because it uses 3 scan engines.

    I like F-secure 5.41 or 5.42 because newer versions have other stuff included: Internet Shield, Firewall, etc, and I don't like that.

    Regards
     
  3. Pigman

    Pigman Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    381
    F-Secure if your computer can handle it. A good candidate for this AV might be something with a P4 processor and a gigabyte of RAM.

    NOD32 if you have an older computer, but still want an AV that detects almost everything. (Note that NOD is currently a bit behind in the trojan-detection department.)

    F-Prot if you have a really ancient computer, or do not want to experience any drain on resources. (F-Prot also has sub-par trojan detection. If you want better Trojan detection, you'll probably want Command AV.)
     
  4. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Command has better trojan detection than F-Prot? I thought it was just a retooled and rebranded F-Prot.
     
  5. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    F-prot uses the standard f-prot engine where as command uses the f-prot professional engine and command has it's own virus defs, trojan defs and hueristics.
     
  6. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Hey,
    Been looking around :ninja: I have decided to to forget the "Which Three" see that post. Thinking I will go with COMMAND, and thanks for the help you folks do a good service. :D
     
  7. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I think you will like command, I have used them all and command works lighter and with almost daily updates good support with very good detection rates. very easy to configure. ;)
     
  8. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
  9. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Apparently it's also very cheap, at $14.95 for a 1 year license.
     
  10. profhsg

    profhsg Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    145
    Command Antivirus seems to be a pretty good deal except it lacks one feature which IMHO is essential for a modern antivirus--a real time email scanner. I have the licensed product and as far as I can see, it can only scan emails from Outlook in real time.
     
  11. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    NOT an essential but a further addition to the AV layer.

    Many people use an AV without an email scanner e.g. F-Prot for Windows or choose to run their AV without the email scanner being switched on. Your Running on-access Guard should catch any malware coming in this way.

    Therefore Command will give you good protection from malware trying to enter via this source and the new version will apparently have some sort of email scanner.
     
  12. yag

    yag Guest

    kloshar, that is not exactly right: that F-Secure alert is not due to its heuristics, but it is just the way, the F-Prot engine categorizes many of the "not-so-important"-malware samples, which are in fact detected by _signatures_. Most backdoors are detected with that kind of alert - and believe me, neither F-Prot, nor F-Secure have a good backdoor heuristic.
    So, it just looks like heuristcs... but it isn't.... ;)

    F-Prot users, who play around with malware, should be able to confirm this.
     
  13. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    But KAV has it. And AVP engine in KAV is the same as in F-secure.
     
  14. yag

    yag Guest

    "But KAV has it. "

    Hm, I don't think so... at least, I haven't seen any heuristic detection of a backdoor by KAV...

    How do you come to believe, that KAV (and therefore F-Secure) have a strong backdoor heuristic? Any test, or something?
     
  15. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    F-Secure uses old AVP engine and KAV doesn't have special rules to pickup backdoors.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.