FortiClient Standard and Lite

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by ocsi, Jul 29, 2011.

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

    Cloud Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,029
    Location:
    United States
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    FortiClient Lite is FortiClient AntiMalware Free Edition. They are the same.
     
  2. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,997
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    I know...I just said that few days ago there were two names of one and the same application...nothing more :cool:
     
  3. sm1

    sm1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    570
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    So no web filter in free version (forticlient lite)?
     
  4. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,974
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    Nope
    Just the AV and AM. Seems interesting.
    Anyone know how light it is? Even how effective it is?
     
  5. Az7

    Az7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Posts:
    139
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    FortiClient Lite has a very low impact on system performance, it uses very few system resources, and works well..

    AAA1.PNG

    AAA4.PNG

    AAA5.PNG
    Multiple-selection list should be added here instead of Single-selection mode..
     
  6. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,974
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    What engine does it use?
     
  7. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,972
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    In-House
     
  8. Kernelwars

    Kernelwars Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Posts:
    2,155
    Location:
    TX
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    howz the detection rate?:doubt:
     
  9. Brocke

    Brocke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    USA,IA
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    well since they removed their web scanner Im not sure. i know the webscanner is really strong at blocking.
     
  10. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2011
  11. Kernelwars

    Kernelwars Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Posts:
    2,155
    Location:
    TX
  12. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    You are welcome mate ;)
     
  13. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,811
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    Its detection is not bad but the heuristic (which by default is turned off in the standard version) cause FPs.
    I have questions
    1. Is the standard build still there? I can see it on CNet.
    2. Is there web filter in the standard build?
     
  14. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    @bellgamin: No problems on IE turned-off Windows 7 64-bit. Panda Cloud complains though, which is annoying.
     
  15. Espresso

    Espresso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Posts:
    976
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    That doesn't look too bad. o_O
     
  16. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    Actually quite good for something that's scanning.
     
  17. windowsdefender

    windowsdefender Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Posts:
    98
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    That is very good RAM and CPU usage when it is scanning.:thumb:
     
  18. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,997
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    OK ... I made a more detailed analysis ... and scared the results :eek:
    Normally, when the FCLite is working in tray, permanently working 6 processes (dark lines)...if we open main window, we have one process more (FortiClient Console) - now 7 processes
    otwarte okno.jpg
    Sometimes turn on the additional two processes FCWscD7 - WSC Helper and FortiScand - Scan Server ... each one separately or both, for a few seconds and then disappear. When we make an update, we have total 10 processes
    Update.jpg
    When we make the scan, we have 10 processes too, but some other
    Skanowanie 2.jpg
    And the best ... sometimes when we scan, we can have even 11 processes
    Skanowanie 11 proces?w.jpg
    I think it's really too much ... FCLite must be completely rebuilt and then can be some an attractive.
     
  19. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,811
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    @ichito: What firewall are you using? Can you please perform a shields up test to see if all your ports are stealth..? Last time I used Forticlient standard I faced that problem not because of its firewall because of the process Fortiproxy.
     
  20. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,997
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    I use Symantec EP 11...just after installtion FCLite have 2 connections
    po instalacji.jpg
    than - after updating - I set "block" for FC Proxy Service but unfortunately the connection is still active o_O
    I have made "stealth test" - first on Audit My PC...none of the ports were open
    audit my pc.jpg
    Than was GRC ShieldsUp and I gave result - all tested ports were stealth but
    "Solicited TCP Packets: PASSED — No TCP packets were received from your system as a direct result of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed below — they are all either fully stealthed or blocked by your ISP. However . . .

    Unsolicited Packets: PASSED — No Internet packets of any sort were received from your system as a side-effect of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed above. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system remained wisely silent. (Except for the fact that not all of its ports are completely stealthed as shown below.)

    Ping Reply: RECEIVED (FAILED)Your system REPLIED to our Ping (ICMP Echo) requests, making it visible on the Internet. Most personal firewalls can be configured to block, drop, and ignore such ping requests in order to better hide systems from hackers. This is highly recommended since "Ping" is among the oldest and most common methods used to locate systems prior to further exploitation."

    Than I made few more tests on PC Flank
    "Stealth Test"
    TCP "ping" stealthed :blink:
    TCP NULL stealthed
    TCP FIN stealthed
    TCP XMAS stealthed
    UDP stealthed
    "Advanced Port Scanner" ("Scan typical vulnerable and Trojan ports")
    "All the ports we have scanned are Stealthed (by a firewall). So just continue following the fundamental security measures and regularly update your security software."
    "Scan 20 random ports"
    "All the ports we have scanned are Stealthed (by a firewall). So just continue following the fundamental security measures and regularly update your security software."

    I don't know what was wrong whit "Ping Reply" on GRC?
     
  21. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,811
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
  22. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,649
    Location:
    Paris
  23. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    That would not be an IE "function" but the Trident layout engine used by many developers to render an app's GUI. Trident underwent significant changes in v8.

    I downloaded Forticlient Lite 4.3.1.0417 (sigs 13.577) yesterday and installed it on test XP SP3 32-bit system and downloaded 30 recent exe files from malc0de, MDL and MalwareBlacklist. All except four were quarantined and those four ended up in my download folder and were verified bad stuff when scanned with MBAM and HMP. I didn't delete or quarantine them in the interest of re-scanning them after the next Forticlient sigs update.

    I did some casual browsing in news sites and checked my gmail for about 1/2 an hour and... I got a Forticlient popup informing me two files were quarantined. I opened that download folder and there were only two files there.

    Cloud??

    I haven't had a chance to mess with it since then. But I'm thinking this needs some serious consideration.
     
  24. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,811
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    Same thinking here...:D
     
  25. windowsdefender

    windowsdefender Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Posts:
    98
    Re: FortiClient Standard 4.2.5.0286

    Agreed
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.