FS Protection PC Release 179

Superuser

Re : FS Protection PC Release 179

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.  

Superuser

Re : FS Protection PC Release 179

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

F-Secure

Re : FS Protection PC Release 179

Hi,

 

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.

 

Ville

(F-Secure R&D)

 

 

Regular Member

Re : FS Protection PC Release 179

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).

Superuser

Re : FS Protection PC Release 179

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

F-Secure

Re: FS Protection PC Release 179

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.

Supporter

Re: FS Protection PC Release 179

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.
Champion

Re: FS Protection PC Release 179

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... :)

Highlighted
Regular Member

Re: FS Protection PC Release 179

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

Superuser

Re: FS Protection PC Release 179

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