Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported?

I've been using F-Prot for DOS for years with Windows 98, but I can no
longer find any reference on the web site to a link for the fp-def and
Macrdef2 update files.

Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
now in some other place)?

If so, any suggestions for a free and unbloated on-demand AV scanner would
be appreciated.

TIA,

John S

In Message-ID:<lp7l80aw0mea.xjb56vsbu03v.dlg@40tude.net> posted on Thu,
5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin


>
>Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
>now in some other place)?

http://www.f-prot.com/download/signaturefiles.html

--

Bart

Bart Bailey wrote:
> In Message-ID:<lp7l80aw0mea.xjb56vsbu03v.dlg@40tude.net> posted on Thu,
> 5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin
>
>
>> Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
>> now in some other place)?
>
> http://www.f-prot.com/download/signaturefiles.html

updated signature files are of limited benefit if the engine isn't
updated too, and it's my understanding that they've released their final
version of the dos product already...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

In Message-ID:<ev6b69$tkj$2@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Fri, 06
Apr 2007 15:12:00 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin

>Bart Bailey wrote:
>> In Message-ID:<lp7l80aw0mea.xjb56vsbu03v.dlg@40tude.net> posted on Thu,
>> 5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin
>>
>>
>>> Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
>>> now in some other place)?
>>
>> http://www.f-prot.com/download/signaturefiles.html
>
>updated signature files are of limited benefit if the engine isn't
>updated too, and it's my understanding that they've released their final
>version of the dos product already...

v3.16f is the version I have
and so far...
it's still working with the currently available defs
I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.

--

Bart

In Message-ID:<4617c7a6.5494270@bart.spawar.mil> posted on Fri, 06 Apr
2007 22:27:56 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin

>I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
>yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.

Correction: My defs are dated Apr 3rd,
maybe they're the last to be available?

--

Bart

Bart Bailey wrote:
> In Message-ID:<4617c7a6.5494270@bart.spawar.mil> posted on Fri, 06 Apr
> 2007 22:27:56 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin
>
>> I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
>> yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.
>
> Correction: My defs are dated Apr 3rd,
> maybe they're the last to be available?

according to http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/dos/
you will still be able to get updates for it even though development of
the program itself has ceased...

that said, the defs have historically been shared between all versions
of the product because they share a common engine - if the engine in the
dos product is no longer going to be upgraded then the dos product is
going to gradually become less effective than it's counterparts for
other OSes...

for people still using DOS itself this shouldn't be an issue since there
are no new DOS viruses and haven't been for a long time, but if you're
using windows then it's recommended you move to the windows product...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:27:56 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote:

> In Message-ID:<ev6b69$tkj$2@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Fri, 06
> Apr 2007 15:12:00 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
>
>>Bart Bailey wrote:
>>> In Message-ID:<lp7l80aw0mea.xjb56vsbu03v.dlg@40tude.net> posted on Thu,
>>> 5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
>>>> now in some other place)?
>>>
>>> http://www.f-prot.com/download/signaturefiles.html
>>
>>updated signature files are of limited benefit if the engine isn't
>>updated too, and it's my understanding that they've released their final
>>version of the dos product already...
>
> v3.16f is the version I have
> and so far...
> it's still working with the currently available defs
> I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
> yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.

Thanks for the advice.

Looks like I will need to find another AV checker.

Cheers,

John S

In Message-ID:<5t3cjx5h3ndv$.i3qpoizxr6h4$.dlg@40tude.net> posted on
Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:12:53 +1200, John S wrote: Begin

>On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:27:56 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote:
>
>> In Message-ID:<ev6b69$tkj$2@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Fri, 06
>> Apr 2007 15:12:00 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
>>
>>>Bart Bailey wrote:
>>>> In Message-ID:<lp7l80aw0mea.xjb56vsbu03v.dlg@40tude.net> posted on Thu,
>>>> 5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Has support for the free F-Prot finally been pulled, (or are the updates
>>>>> now in some other place)?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.f-prot.com/download/signaturefiles.html
>>>
>>>updated signature files are of limited benefit if the engine isn't
>>>updated too, and it's my understanding that they've released their final
>>>version of the dos product already...
>>
>> v3.16f is the version I have
>> and so far...
>> it's still working with the currently available defs
>> I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
>> yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
>
>Looks like I will need to find another AV checker.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John S

I never ran any real time AV scanning
even during my five year evaluation of AVG/KAV etc.
so I plan to keep on using the freebie F-Prot.
My system serves my email and browsing needs fine
just won't play a lot of XML, i-frame garbage, nor js sploits.

--

Bart

In Message-ID:<evbo51$bv6$2@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Sun, 08
Apr 2007 13:39:39 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin

>Bart Bailey wrote:
>> In Message-ID:<4617c7a6.5494270@bart.spawar.mil> posted on Fri, 06 Apr
>> 2007 22:27:56 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin
>>
>>> I think I saw a bulletin stating Apr 4th as the terminal date,
>>> yet my defs from yesterday Apr 5th still run normally.
>>
>> Correction: My defs are dated Apr 3rd,
>> maybe they're the last to be available?
>
>according to http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/dos/
>you will still be able to get updates for it even though development of
>the program itself has ceased...
>
>that said, the defs have historically been shared between all versions
>of the product because they share a common engine - if the engine in the
>dos product is no longer going to be upgraded then the dos product is
>going to gradually become less effective than it's counterparts for
>other OSes...
>
>for people still using DOS itself this shouldn't be an issue since there
>are no new DOS viruses and haven't been for a long time, but if you're
>using windows then it's recommended you move to the windows product...

What if you're using Windows, but stripped down to where it's only
slightly more vulnerable that DOS itself?

--

Bart

Bart Bailey wrote:
> Apr 2007 13:39:39 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
[snip]
>> according to http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/dos/
>> you will still be able to get updates for it even though development of
>> the program itself has ceased...
>>
>> that said, the defs have historically been shared between all versions
>> of the product because they share a common engine - if the engine in the
>> dos product is no longer going to be upgraded then the dos product is
>> going to gradually become less effective than it's counterparts for
>> other OSes...
>>
>> for people still using DOS itself this shouldn't be an issue since there
>> are no new DOS viruses and haven't been for a long time, but if you're
>> using windows then it's recommended you move to the windows product...
>
> What if you're using Windows, but stripped down to where it's only
> slightly more vulnerable that DOS itself?

as long as windows software will run on it windows malware will run on
it, so you're probably going to need an anti-virus that will continue to
get updated to handle new windows malware as time goes by...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"