FS Protection PC Release 179

VilleVille Posts: 521 F-Secure Employee

Note: Releases 177 and 178 were skipped. Previous beta release was 176.


This release contains following applications that combined make the FS Protection PC product:

  • Common Component Framework 2.79.316
  • Antivirus 14.179.103
  • Browsing protection 2.179.4796

New features:


  • New modernized "scanning platform" utilizing both installed signatures and cloud-based detection technology. With the new scanning platform, product installation is faster and a number of old software components have been removed giving a more lightweight product. This brings about a number of other changes, detailed below.
  • Real-time scanning now removes all malware automatically without prompting (see next point about an exception).
  • Low-risk potentially harmful applications will not be blocked and removed automatically. Instead, real-time scanning will report them without blocking and the user will be able to exclude them from detection if so wished.
  • DeepGuard no longer prompts the user for action, blocking all harmful or suspicions applications automatically. To allow an application, click on "Unblock" in the Events list entry for this blocked application.
  • A new "Run scanning with low priority" option for scheduled scanning allows scheduled scans to run with low CPU utilization. When enabled, scheduled scans will interfere less with other activities on the computer, while taking longer to complete.
  • Scheduled scanning no longer uses manual scanning settings. Instead, "Scan only known file types" and "Scan inside compressed files" can be configured for scheduled scans separately.
  • Scanning exclusions have been simpified and are available on a new Settings GUI page. DeepGuard uses the same scanning exclusions list and the "Application permissions" list specific to DeepGuard has been removed. Note that applications on this list allowed as before the product upgrade will be automatically migrated to the common exclusions list.

Removed features:


  • Windows Vista is no longer supported

Browsing Protection:

  • "Reinstall" button removed from settings as it was not working reliably enough.


  • Scanning of POP3 e-mail traffic (both malware and spam scanning). Thus, "Spam filtering" settings page has been removed and the "Remove harmful e-mail attachments" setting has been removed from Virus protection settings.
  • DeepGuard configuration options: only the master On/Off switch remains, options like e.g. "Warn me about suspicious behavior" have been removed.
  • "Use advanced heuristics" Manual scanning setting has been removed.
  • Statistics information has been removed. We have plans to reintroduce improved statistics in the future.




  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser

    Just had this.  A big upgrade!  Restart required, but that seems pretty regular on my machine.


    Anti-Virus took a while to update - about 10 minutes - but this was hopefully due to the new  / changed functions, and will be quicker in future.


    New features look good - but there's getting less to tinker with, meaning less to report as a beta tester (unless, of course, something goes wrong).


    Would still like to see a darker theme - even if just the background of the UI.


    One thing to note - my Internet connection seems to have slowed down this morning.  Quite possibly nothing to do with FSP, but thought it worth mentioning, in case others are experiencing the same.  Anything to do with Internet traffic scanning, perhaps? 

  • UkkoUkko Posts: 3,215 Superuser



    Thanks for release. Too much interesting to get this!


    With brief look (just installed recently) comes just with two small UI troubles.

    All other dreams based on another reply https://community.f-secure.com/t5/Home-Security/no-news/m-p/89394/highlight/true#M3203 (before getting update), which looks like related with changes in fact;



    Just as F-Secure Ultralight with not-full screen UI mode. :)


    Thanks for release else one time!

    Many of things looks like great (except all other of them)!


    /// added later:


    Looks like that for situation, when application was blocked by user under the prompt (unknown application tried to do network connection),  this "decision" do not saved after upgrade (and if it was allowed)  - probably because this feature just totally dropped (not really noted under the release-notes; because I thought that "warn about suspicious action" and "unknown application tried to do network connection" was two different features);

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser

    no connection inpact after clean install on my main rig, still 930/260 mbs, no glitches so far.

    good job folks

  • UkkoUkko Posts: 3,215 Superuser

    Not really understand point how FS Protection handle zipped/archives with fresh design (under the manual/context scan at least).


    In somewhat reason (based on my experience) zipped/archive (or some type of them) file will be scanned (and if malicious can be - so - detected) just with direct scan for this file or (this file and other files) from related folder.


    But if do scan the folder, folders or drive, which contain this zipped/archive file  - scanning process do not detect (or scan - based on UI / information of number-scanned files) them.


    // but not....   picture-files too (as zipped/archives).

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser
    Same statement here Ukko, seems to be by design, unless you dl such file.
  • UkkoUkko Posts: 3,215 Superuser

    Yes, probably based on point about drop the "advanced feature scanning"-option.

    Just a little be strange works about (like strange different points - when current design work);


    At least there have good points. If previously full scan can take with my system about hour or three hours;

    With fresh design full scan is five minutes or thirty minutes. But with missing any detections (which can be under the some folders based on previous replies).

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser

    "DeepGuard configuration options: only the master On/Off switch remains, options like e.g. "Warn me about suspicious behavior" have been removed"

    this is the only feature I would miss because I do think I should know  if a program is dangerous (even potentially).

  • I kinda miss the DeepGuard detection dialog/popup. It displayed more information :)


    But I can understand that new solution is better for novice users (less miss-clicked "whitelist" button).

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser

    you aare right

  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser

    What I would like to see, as with one or two other similar products, is something like an "auto-pilot" mode, where minimal configuration options are available, but the user has the option to switch off "auto-pilot", or perhaps go into an "advanced mode" in order to access deeper functions and configurations.  I think that would then please both novice, and more advanced users.  

  • UkkoUkko Posts: 3,215 Superuser

    Probably two modes can be good for users, but for the engineers at F-Secure will create just additional tasks.

    Like... situation will be like previously, but also additional "mode" for checking.


    I trying to understand that maybe current design have good possibilities to do just things, which really needed.

    So.. even there can be strange situations (which looks like not OK) - maybe "result in full meanings" comes valid.

    I talk about something like "experience-usage"  of F-Secure's experience with provide security software; 

    As example: If there usually the same situations about some actions. So if there will be "less impact" at scanning - OK, good (even if it will be miss some malicious files);  Because "too much impact" at scanning - trouble; If possible to get some of "malicious" with "less impact" - good point; What about other (which not detected) - but them will be detected during launch/action or direct scan for this files (which most likely will be more common for get this);


    And about other features.

    But I think that there is can be too much hard understanding design of work for users (as expecting some of level-protection); And hard to think about potential troubles in design, which can be randomly there.


    On current time - there will be (or can be) difference with scanning with Network Connection and when is disabled. Not just DeepGuard (as before), but also with scanning and with possibility launch files. Good if this can not be related with any of files (malicious) or can be prevented anyway.


    Sorry fo reply. Not sure why I decided to do reply. Smiley Sad

  • VilleVille Posts: 521 F-Secure Employee



    Please keep the comments coming. We are reading all the discussion and taking note of your opinions.


    Some features were dropped because they were obsolete. Some features were dropped because they caused serious trouble with operating system. Others might have just been dropped because architecture change and we might bring them back based on your feedback.


    One thing that will not come back is DeepGuard suspending the process and asking user a question with a pop-up. Unfortunately Windows really does not like that and it caused a lot of trouble for us to try to keep working. That is why the DeepGuard decision is now automatic and user is informed about it with a flyer.


    What do you think about native 64-bit scanning core on 64-bit OS. It increases the memory consumption a bit compared to 32-bit but should perform better.



    (F-Secure R&D)



  • MysticizaMysticiza Posts: 24 Explorer

    I'm not beta user but a regular SAFE user but still I like to follow these threads and give comments.


    64 bit core sounds great if it gives some more power for the scanning process.  Usually 64 bit systems doesn't lack the RAM that much.


    To come back to the topic above: I find it a bit odd that F-Secure removes settings in about every update. Most of your competitors offer a lot more to customize and there is still users that need those settings. I have proposed those two modes (novice and expert) on this forum a few years back trying to justify why we need your own firewall back (Windows Firewall for novices and your own for experts).

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser

    x64 should give more execution speed, a bit more ram occupation should not bother anyone as 8 to 16 gb ram are overwhelming on the market, so yes pls go ahead.

    I second Mystisica second paragraph

  • UrmasUrmas Posts: 56 F-Secure Employee

    If an archive file has been scanned before and found clean, the scanning result is cached. If the file has not been changed since, the next scan will not need to unpack the archive and scan files inside them, and will instead return the "clean" result quickly. As it does not unpack the archive anymore, it also does not count the individual files within it as scanned. You can test this by disabling real-time scanning: in this case cached results are not used and full count of scanned files inside archive will get reported.


    But if you mean that you have an archive that contains malicious files that are not detected by scan then please create a bug report.

  • New build seems to be working really, really nice. RAM usage is higher, that's true, but that's nothing. Overall, there are no slowdowns and it's good to see that F-Secure is going to be 64-bit.
  • Native 64-bit scanning core is big plus in my opinion. Nowadays all new PCs ship with at least 4GB of RAM and 8GB is becoming standard. There's no real difference if security product is fast and uses 200MB instead of 100MB. Will install new beta on my main PC now... :)

  • As previously mentioned Simon, also strikes me that changed since the things I have not suddenly speed test on almost all the speed test site's can carry more. This is due to the major changes @Ville   latency error.pngThis messages i see now on that websites

  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser

    imo the error comes from elsewhere, no change here, same speeds as before... I suggest you investigate further

  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser

    I did a manual Check for Updates this evening, as I had a "couldn't connect to server"error (probably after all the messing about with Malwarebytes), and I noticed that there seems to be an error with the dates of last updates - either that, or I've become a time traveller!  Smiley Very Happy





  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser

    Another thing I have discovered is that my Action Center (Windows 7) is reporting that F-Secure Anti-Virus is not turned on, yet the FS UI says that it is.  If I click the "Turn on now" button, nothing seems to happen.



  • yeoldfartyeoldfart Posts: 517 Superuser
    Back to the future : ))
    How late in the evening ? Put the blame on Santa !
  • nanonymenanonyme Posts: 146 Path Finder

    FWIW when seeing such download oddities, make sure to file bugs just in case you didn't find something severe. My hunch is the splittage to separate 32bit and 64bit AV engines may result in slightly more download failures overall.

  • UkkoUkko Posts: 3,215 Superuser

    Still not sure about 64bit Scanning core - probably I not able to feel "visible" difference based on points, which related with another changes around scanning design (or work design);

    But looks like that this is good step.



    Some other small points of..


    Also probably with fresh design for installing updates (or start be more often.. or) start be more visible as drive-usage. And time to time "system resources" also (previously was maybe totally like that, but I do not met so often situations - when I certainly understand that updates comes); But maybe with full meanings - anyway work more briefly.


    Also strange points with cloud-detections (I mean situation: when some (?!) files can be detected just with network connection enabled). I not sure that it visible for me.. if cloud-detection can be as main design or as additional.

    But more troublepoint, that.. if with temporary network connection trouble: file is scanned and found it good.

    So... with netowork connection after that... SOME (?) time will be missing detection for this file. At launch too (probably).



  • martinkmartink Posts: 402 Adventurer

    The same thing for me in W10 64 pro. Windows reporting that FS in not on.

    FS had done update check an hour earlier.

    Di a manual check for updates and there was one which was down loaded and installed later.

    Today a couple of days later no more messages from Windows, but more updates have been installed..


    Works smooth as ever.

  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser
    I ended up uninstalling and re-installing FSP and all seems fine now. I'm wondering if perhaps Malwarebytes was interfering with it?
  • UrmasUrmas Posts: 56 F-Secure Employee



    We have discovered an issue you should be aware of. When the computer has not been restarted for over 7 days, it may start reporting that virus protection is not up to date ("check for updates"), although it has been receiving and installing updates all the time. When this happens you can restart the computer to recover from the problem. We'll fix this in the next release.

  • JcananJcanan Posts: 1

    so smooth in the background on macbook pro mac sierra 10.12.3 Beta (16D17a) I don't even know its running, except when rendering larger video files


  • martinkmartink Posts: 402 Adventurer

    Ok, that makes sense. Thank you for letting us know.

    (This was in reply to Urmas)

  • RFlickRFlick Posts: 4

    Can I get someone at F-Secure to resend my temporary password. I submitted issues that I have not recieved my email containing my temporary password but no one has responded back to me.

This discussion has been closed.