Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported?

[John S]

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

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> 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

 

[kurt wismer]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Thu,
5 Apr 2007 19:32:33 +1200, John S wrote: Begin



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...

 

[Bart Bailey]

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 Bailey]

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?

 

[kurt wismer]

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...

 

[John S]

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

 

[Bart Bailey]

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 Bailey]

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?

 

[kurt wismer]

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...

 

[Bart Bailey]

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...

Sure, but only the def sigs for new variants of old malware,
not new OS exploits that go something my system won't support.

 

[kurt wismer]

Sure, but only the def sigs for new variants of old malware,
not new OS exploits that go something my system won't support.

no, you're don't seem to be getting it...

let's take an extreme example... you remember when macro viruses first
came out? scanner *engines* had to be updated in order to detect them -
signature updates alone weren't enough...

sometimes it's enough to just tell the scanner new things to look for
(signature updates) but sometimes you need to tell the scanner new
*ways* to look (engine updates)... i'm sure you already realize this (in
fact i'm sure you've seen me say it before) but what you may be missing
is that this is not just about OS exploits... do you use *.pdf files or
watch videos online? scripting capabilities in those have been exploited
recently and in future other types of files may prove equally potent for
malware deployment... without engine updates you'd be stuck with a
product that (despite having the necessary signatures) would be unable
to find malware in those types of files due to not knowing how to parse
them...

 

[Bart Bailey]

do you use *.pdf files

yes with a script disabled Adobe v7

or
watch videos online?
No

scripting capabilities in those have been exploited
recently and in future other types of files may prove equally potent for
malware deployment... without engine updates you'd be stuck with a
product that (despite having the necessary signatures) would be unable
to find malware in those types of files due to not knowing how to parse
them...

Like I said,
I don't need to look for what can't hurt me.

 

[kurt wismer]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon, 09
Apr 2007 18:50:55 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin [snip]

scripting capabilities in those have been exploited
recently and in future other types of files may prove equally potent for
malware deployment... without engine updates you'd be stuck with a
product that (despite having the necessary signatures) would be unable
to find malware in those types of files due to not knowing how to parse
them...

Like I said,
I don't need to look for what can't hurt me.

unless you're operating in a closed system (ie. you don't send/receive
files of any type with anyone else) then i think you're being a bit
naive... if you exchange *anything* with other people the potential
exists for that to one day be exploited...