Would you recommend installing ULAV's "Advanced Local Scanning"?

ULAV comes with an offline scanner, AFAIK it uses cloud definitions to work, and thus has a backup, that also AFAIK is Bitdefender's licensed engine. Do you leave it off?

Best Answer

  • UkkoUkko Posts: 2,974 Superuser
    Accepted Answer

    Hello,

     

    I think that setting is based on 'requirements' of your own use.

     

    For example, if I will try to use F-Secure ULAV further (I do not able to use F-Secure ULAV - because there are some troubles for normal work under my systems) - I do leave 'offline engine' (advanced local scanning) is off.

    Thus, I will use F-Secure ULAV as cloud-based solution (with potential F-Secure own small local 'offline' basic engine - if system will be with disabled network). I did not try to research it - but I think that detection rate is not enough good for daily (safe) use; while it should be OK for common normal system use. With meanings that DeepGuard may be more 'strict' and visible than with advanced local scanning engine.

    And I will do so - just because it is interesting to look how F-Secure ULAV works with such configuration.

     

    Because otherwise (with enabled "Advanced Local Scanning") it is practically normal F-Secure SAFE solution or FS Protection (SAFE beta). For except, that FS Protection with much more settings and more stable/active.

    But even F-Secure ULAV with some other differences compared to FS Protection too; but I'm not sure if it is can be critical for choice.

     

    In general, I would recommend install/enable ULAV's Advanced Local Scanning for being with potentially higher count of detection rate. While cloud's design (as it was before) will be invisible already.

    Also, I think that current stable and 'mainstream' beta as FS Protection with pretty cloud-design too. And, basically, it should be much more interesting solution than F-Secure ULAV with its current view.

     

    (not sure about wordings, but yes) "Advanced Local Scanning" and "Aquarius" cores are based on noted licensed engine (with some internal F-Secure's tweaks; and probably with differences with noted company's own core which is based on such engine).

    But I'm also only F-Secure user (their home solutions). So, it is only my own unofficial feelings and suggestions.

     

    Thanks!

    rmondin

Comments

  • nanonymenanonyme Posts: 145

     


    @Ukko wrote:

    Hello,

     

    I think that setting is based on 'requirements' of your own use.

     

    For example, if I will try to use F-Secure ULAV further (I do not able to use F-Secure ULAV - because there are some troubles for normal work under my systems) - I do leave 'offline engine' (advanced local scanning) is off.

    Thus, I will use F-Secure ULAV as cloud-based solution (with potential F-Secure own small local 'offline' basic engine - if system will be with disabled network). I did not try to research it - but I think that detection rate is not enough good for daily (safe) use; while it should be OK for common normal system use. With meanings that DeepGuard may be more 'strict' and visible than with advanced local scanning engine.

    And I will do so - just because it is interesting to look how F-Secure ULAV works with such configuration.

     

    Because otherwise (with enabled "Advanced Local Scanning") it is practically normal F-Secure SAFE solution or FS Protection (SAFE beta). For except, that FS Protection with much more settings and more stable/active.

    But even F-Secure ULAV with some other differences compared to FS Protection too; but I'm not sure if it is can be critical for choice.

     

    In general, I would recommend install/enable ULAV's Advanced Local Scanning for being with potentially higher count of detection rate. While cloud's design (as it was before) will be invisible already.

    Also, I think that current stable and 'mainstream' beta as FS Protection with pretty cloud-design too. And, basically, it should be much more interesting solution than F-Secure ULAV with its current view.

     

    (not sure about wordings, but yes) "Advanced Local Scanning" and "Aquarius" cores are based on noted licensed engine (with some internal F-Secure's tweaks; and probably with differences with noted company's own core which is based on such engine).

    But I'm also only F-Secure user (their home solutions). So, it is only my own unofficial feelings and suggestions.

     

    Thanks!


    Hey,

    interestingly enough I guess that's one major difference between the two: you can't unselect local scanning (Aquarius) in regular F-Secure products. It would be really nice if you could, the updates cause a serious amount of CPU and disk usage.

    Ukkormondin
This discussion has been closed.