cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

Scholar

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?

Tags (1)
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Superuser

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

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!

2 REPLIES
Superuser

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

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!

Highlighted
Senior Member

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

 


@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.