F-Prot

Zvi Netiv · External Since: May 01, 2005 Posts: 170

"Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> "* * Chas" <dnafutz.TakeThisOut@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
> > "James Egan" <jegan.TakeThisOut@jegan.com> wrote in message

> > Actually, it does - from a DOS boot disk..... but it probably doesn't
> > scan correctly.
>
> Actually it doesn't - a boot to DOS is no longer an "XP platform"

A platform isn't defined by what you boot to. Most users will call a platform
after the installed OS(s).

> whereas a DOS window within XP would still be. Booting to DOS would not
> support NTFS without the driver supplied by NTFS4DOS (for scanning) and
> then you would need to pro version to affect any changes (write
> capability).

Wrong again. NTFS4DOS is a free full access NTFS driver for DOS, from Datapool.
You are confusing it with NTFSDOS from Winternals. It's the latter that has a
pro version, required for full access (read-write).

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities

Yrael · External Since: Jul 31, 2005 Posts: 3

Why has this thread gone on for so long? I will try to finish it here.

It is perfectly simple. F-Prot for DOS will NOT run PROPERLY under a
Windows XP "platform", whatever your file system is. It will NOT run
PROPERLY using a NTFS file system. and it will NOT run PROPERLY under a
FAT32 file system either.

This is because Windows XP does not use DOS, it uses DOS "emulation". And
certain aspects of this DOS "emulation" are not compatible with some
advanced aspects of the F-Prot for DOS Antivirus Program.

Now, if you are going to boot your PC from a floppy disk or CD-ROM, then you
may be able to get F-Prot for DOS to work properly. There are lots of
options if you boot from a floppy disk or CD-ROM. You can choose DOS, DOS
with long filemame support, NTFSDOS Pro with long filename support etc etc.

But if you do this, then you are not running F-Prot for DOS under a Windows
XP "platform". You are running it under whichever "platform" you chose to
boot your PC with.

Simple isn't it?

kurt wismer · External Since: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 1496

Yrael wrote:
[snip]
> Now, if you are going to boot your PC from a floppy disk or CD-ROM, then you
> may be able to get F-Prot for DOS to work properly. There are lots of
> options if you boot from a floppy disk or CD-ROM. You can choose DOS, DOS
> with long filemame support, NTFSDOS Pro with long filename support etc etc.
>
> But if you do this, then you are not running F-Prot for DOS under a Windows
> XP "platform". You are running it under whichever "platform" you chose to
> boot your PC with.
>
> Simple isn't it?

in order to not run afoul of zvi's point on what constitutes an xp
platform, you might want to revise this to state that you're not running
in a windows xp *environment*...

the _platform_ is kind of a red herring...

--
"they threw a rope around yer neck to watch you dance the jig of death
then left ya for the starvin' crows, hoverin' like hungry whores
one flew down plucked out yer eye, the other he had in his sights
ya snarled at him, said leave me be - i need the bugger so i can see"

James Egan · External Since: Jan 19, 2006 Posts: 228

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, Jafo <a.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
>>used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
>>You may have a problem on your machine.
>
>Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.

That's not it, either.

F-Prot DOS won't work properly in a xp dos window irrespective of
filesystem.

Jim.

Yrael · External Since: Jul 31, 2005 Posts: 3

"kurt wismer" <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Aq6He.348$z91.32980@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Yrael wrote:
> [snip]
>> Now, if you are going to boot your PC from a floppy disk or CD-ROM, then
>> you may be able to get F-Prot for DOS to work properly. There are lots
>> of options if you boot from a floppy disk or CD-ROM. You can choose DOS,
>> DOS with long filemame support, NTFSDOS Pro with long filename support
>> etc etc.
>>
>> But if you do this, then you are not running F-Prot for DOS under a
>> Windows XP "platform". You are running it under whichever "platform" you
>> chose to boot your PC with.
>>
>> Simple isn't it?
>
> in order to not run afoul of zvi's point on what constitutes an xp
> platform, you might want to revise this to state that you're not running
> in a windows xp *environment*...
>
> the _platform_ is kind of a red herring...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair comment Kurt. I am not absolutely sure of the exact semantic
difference between a "platform" and an "environment" myself, or even if
there is one!

But I think the "original" query has been answered.

* * Chas · External Since: Aug 27, 2005 Posts: 178

"James Egan" <jegan RemoveThis @jegan.com> wrote in message
news:gfope1li3nd4vbvsn3t2qvns8nhi8mib3k@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, Jafo <a RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
|
| >>Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
| >>used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
| >>You may have a problem on your machine.
| >
| >Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.
|
| That's not it, either.
|
| F-Prot DOS won't work properly in a xp dos window irrespective of
| filesystem.
|
|
| Jim.
|

The discussion has turned into a comparison similar to the 4 blind men
describing an elephant from 4 different locations - the trunk, the tail,
a leg and the belly!

Without an understanding of the situation, I have "run" F-Prot for DOS
in DOS Windows on NT4, Win2k and XP with both FAT32 and NTFS file
systems. I've also run it from a DOS boot floppy disk on the afore
mentioned OSs.

Whether F-Prot worked as intended is another issue. From all I've read
including Frisk Software, F-Prot for DOS didn't do a complete scan of
all the files is was configured to check on these systems even though it
completed the scans.

F-Prot for DOS is not completely compatible with the NTFS and XP file
systems - that's where the problem exists. It probably checks the boot
sectors and memory OK, after that????

Chas.

Roger Wilco · External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 389

"Zvi Netiv" <support RemoveThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman RemoveThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "Zvi Netiv" <support RemoveThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman RemoveThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sources I trust have mentioned here many times that F-Prot for
DOS does
> > > > not work properly on XP irrespective of which file system one
chooses
> > > > when installing XP. The OP should use F-Prot for Windows instead
as
> > > > mentioned by another poster.
> > >
> > > NTFS4DOS is a DOS driver, used to mount NTFS volumes *under DOS*.
The governing
> > > factor whether F-Prot will run properly on the platform is the OS,
*not* the
> > > target drive file system. As Frisk explained here, years ago, the
problem is
> > > with the DOS extender used.
> >
> > So, the answer to "Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??" is still
no if
> > F-Prot for DOS and XP's DOS emulation are indicated? Using NTFS4DOS
> > indicates the user is not using XP's DOS emulator and so the "XP
> > platform" part of the question is not relevant to the answer "If you
use
> > NTFS4DOS it wil". It's like answering "Linux" to the question "What
is
> > the best AV". Smile

)
>
> Idiotic sophistry.
>
> It depends on what you understand as an "XP platform". A PC with only
XP
> installed will be considered by most users as an XP platform, even
when switched
> off. Hence, not the running OS is what makes it a "platform", the
installed
> system does.

When my computer is turned off, it is only a platform for my monitor. Smile

Okay, so F-Prot for DOS works fine on an XP platform as long as you are
not running XP.

Funny, that sounds even worse to me. Smile

Frederic Bonroy · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 246

Yrael a écrit :

> Fair comment Kurt. I am not absolutely sure of the exact semantic
> difference between a "platform" and an "environment" myself, or even if
> there is one!

Perhaps one could argue that the environment consists of the
hard-/software that is currently active while the platform includes
everything that is... well... "there", no matter whether it's being used
or not. The platform is perhaps more fundamental.

I doubt if there is a general agreement on what distinguishes a platform
from an environment if there is a difference at all.

Soundspider · External Since: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 1

of course, if you identify a file in XP and tell FP dos to scan it and
it reports that it did scan it .. then it DID run.

The answer is that it doesnt scan the entire system without hand
holding and brainless button pushing.

However it does a dandy job of scanning your garden variety "is this a
problem" file

Oh and it also does a dandy job of scanning floppy disks that are IN
an XP system.

So in other words, it runs fine under XP. Just use it to scan files
and folders YOU pick, and it does what you ask.

Simple, isnt it ?

Jafo <a RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:

>As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, Ghostown wrote:
>
>>"badgolferman" wrote...
>>>Richard Oliver wrote:
>>>>Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??
>
>>>F-Prot for Windows will, F-Prot for DOS won't. At first it
>>>looks like it is, but it shuts down shortly into the scan.
>>
>>Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
>>used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
>>You may have a problem on your machine.
>
>Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.

--
Your lot in life is rental property. Payments due daily, utilities not included.

Jafo · External Since: Mar 15, 2005 Posts: 43

As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, * * Chas wrote:

>I have "run" F-Prot for DOS in DOS Windows on NT4, Win2k and XP
>with both FAT32 and NTFS file systems. I've also run it from a
>DOS boot floppy disk on the afore mentioned OSs.

Really? Boot from that DOS diskette with a C drive that's NTFS.
Type dir c:
What do you get?

--
Jafo

Zvi Netiv · External Since: May 01, 2005 Posts: 170

"* * Chas" <dnafutz RemoveThis @aol.spam.com> wrote:

[...]
> Without an understanding of the situation, I have "run" F-Prot for DOS
> in DOS Windows on NT4, Win2k and XP with both FAT32 and NTFS file
> systems. I've also run it from a DOS boot floppy disk on the afore
> mentioned OSs.

Irrelevant.

> Whether F-Prot worked as intended is another issue. From all I've read
> including Frisk Software, F-Prot for DOS didn't do a complete scan of
> all the files is was configured to check on these systems even though it
> completed the scans.
>
> F-Prot for DOS is not completely compatible with the NTFS and XP file
> systems -

That's not what Frisk say. FP for DOS is not compatible with XP. Period.
Besides, XP is not a "file system", it's an operating system, and the mention of
NTFS in this context is irrelevant.

> that's where the problem exists. It probably checks the boot
> sectors and memory OK, after that????

F-Prot for DOS doesn't check the boot sectors / MBR when run from the DOS shell
under XP (or under any NT derived OS) as direct disk access is not allowed by
the operating system.

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities

* * Chas · External Since: Aug 27, 2005 Posts: 178

"Jafo" <a RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:so5se1poa0ms542nfireis146l68dfvup2@4ax.com...
| As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, * * Chas wrote:
|
| >I have "run" F-Prot for DOS in DOS Windows on NT4, Win2k and XP
| >with both FAT32 and NTFS file systems. I've also run it from a
| >DOS boot floppy disk on the afore mentioned OSs.
|
| Really? Boot from that DOS diskette with a C drive that's NTFS.
| Type dir c:
| What do you get?
|
| --
| Jafo

A:\ C: Invalid Drive Specification Yep, been there.

I stopped using F-Prot boot disks when the definitions got too big to
fit on floppies and I can't find my old set. The only NT4 and Win2k
systems I currently have are multiboot PCs using FAT32 so I can't check
out what I did in the past. Maybe I was mistaken about booting to NTFS.

I just tried booting with a number of different DOS boot disks on one of
my WinXP NTFS laptops. No go.

Chas.

Jafo · External Since: Mar 15, 2005 Posts: 43

As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, * * Chas wrote:

>"Jafo" wrote...
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>>I have "run" F-Prot for DOS in DOS Windows on NT4, Win2k and XP
>>>with both FAT32 and NTFS file systems. I've also run it from a
>>>DOS boot floppy disk on the afore mentioned OSs.

>>Really? Boot from that DOS diskette with a C drive that's NTFS.
>>Type dir c:
>>What do you get?

>A:\ C: Invalid Drive Specification Yep, been there.
>
>I stopped using F-Prot boot disks when the definitions got too big
>to fit on floppies and I can't find my old set. The only NT4 and
>Win2k systems I currently have are multiboot PCs using FAT32 so I
>can't check out what I did in the past. Maybe I was mistaken about
>booting to NTFS.
>
>I just tried booting with a number of different DOS boot disks on
>one of my WinXP NTFS laptops. No go.

Right. Next, download and install the ntfs4dos program (ntfsinst.exe)
from www.datapol.de/dpe/freeware/ . From the directory it creates on
your hard drive, copy the ntfs4dos.exe file onto that boot disk and
boot from the disk. Type ntfs4dos and hit Enter.

Now type "dir c:" (without the quotes)

You should be able to access your hard drive. No long filenames, but
you'll have read/write access.

--
Jafo

James Egan · External Since: Jan 19, 2006 Posts: 228

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:42 GMT, Art <null.DeleteThis@zilch.com> wrote:

>To get back to DOS scanners, I read somewhere that it's twice as fast
>to build your own FF/FN, as it were, based on low level BIOS calls.
>Some DOS scanners might do this and have other bugs as well.
>They'll never be fixed, since there's no marketing/business
>interest in doing do. OTOH, some might work fine. There's the question
>of what other DOS scanners are unsuitable/suitable for the NT based OS
>with the FAT 32 option.

That could be a useful utility to add to your list.

F-Prot DOS seemed to run okay on xp (fat32) when used within the
tech-protect front end (which created it's own scan list for f-prot).

I think they've given up with it though. Too many little quirks in
f-prot which frisk couldn't be bothered with fixing.

Jim.

Ghostown · External Since: Sep 10, 2005 Posts: 9

"Jafo" <a.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ejhpe15np9gshv3pt3jagj3frie88qu5lo@4ax.com...
> As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, Ghostown wrote:
>
> >"badgolferman" wrote...
> >>Richard Oliver wrote:
> >>>Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??
>
> >>F-Prot for Windows will, F-Prot for DOS won't. At first it
> >>looks like it is, but it shuts down shortly into the scan.
> >
> >Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
> >used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
> >You may have a problem on your machine.
>
> Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.
>
> --
> Jafo

Agreed. I typically dont use NTFS. If its skipping directory trees and
what not, I dont know what it might be missing, but its sure found things
many times before and gotten my butt out of a sling. Smile

)

Roger Wilco · External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 389

"Ghostown" <none.RemoveThis@thistime.com> wrote in message
news:3DXHe.59985$gL1.37838@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Jafo" <a.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ejhpe15np9gshv3pt3jagj3frie88qu5lo@4ax.com...
> > As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, Ghostown wrote:
> >
> > >"badgolferman" wrote...
> > >>Richard Oliver wrote:
> > >>>Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??
> >
> > >>F-Prot for Windows will, F-Prot for DOS won't. At first it
> > >>looks like it is, but it shuts down shortly into the scan.
> > >
> > >Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
> > >used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
> > >You may have a problem on your machine.
> >
> > Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.
> >
> > --
> > Jafo
>
> Agreed. I typically dont use NTFS. If its skipping directory trees
and
> what not, I dont know what it might be missing, but its sure found
things
> many times before and gotten my butt out of a sling. Smile

)

The point of the discussion was to caution against trusting F-Prot for
DOS when it is running in the XP software "environment" even if FAT32 is
the file system in use instead of NTFS. It is NOT the file system (NTFS)
that makes F-Prot unreliable in that environment. Forget the side
discussion about what constitutes an "XP platform" because it is the
"environment" that the platform is currently running that matters - it
should not be XP's environment with a DOS session within.

Roger Wilco · External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 389

"Zvi Netiv" <support.TakeThisOut@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:u8bpe1t9kig0li6fnecmn9cpj08j0bve06@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "* * Chas" <dnafutz.TakeThisOut@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > "James Egan" <jegan.TakeThisOut@jegan.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Actually, it does - from a DOS boot disk..... but it probably
doesn't
> > > scan correctly.
> >
> > Actually it doesn't - a boot to DOS is no longer an "XP platform"
>
> A platform isn't defined by what you boot to. Most users will call a
platform
> after the installed OS(s).

Are we to define things by what "most users" call them - looks like an
appeal to numbers. You can build upon a hardware platform by adding
software of a type that the platform supports - to build upon a software
platform, the software has to be running - otherwise it is just data in
storage. I was wrong in assuming the OP meant the XP environment.

If I have a deenergized computer with WinXP on one partition, Win98 on
another, OS/2 on a removeable harddrive, Linux on a CD in the drive
tray, and a DOS 6.22 on a boot floppy in drive 'A' then what would you
call the "platform" without knowing what program control data was in the
CMOS? What is it about a storage device that makes an OS considered
"installed" on a computer?

> > whereas a DOS window within XP would still be. Booting to DOS would
not
> > support NTFS without the driver supplied by NTFS4DOS (for scanning)
and
> > then you would need to pro version to affect any changes (write
> > capability).
>
> Wrong again. NTFS4DOS is a free full access NTFS driver for DOS, from
Datapool.
> You are confusing it with NTFSDOS from Winternals. It's the latter
that has a
> pro version, required for full access (read-write).

Right, I was confused on that issue.

Roger Wilco · External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 389

"Zvi Netiv" <support.TakeThisOut@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "Zvi Netiv" <support.TakeThisOut@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sources I trust have mentioned here many times that F-Prot for
DOS does
> > > > not work properly on XP irrespective of which file system one
chooses
> > > > when installing XP. The OP should use F-Prot for Windows instead
as
> > > > mentioned by another poster.
> > >
> > > NTFS4DOS is a DOS driver, used to mount NTFS volumes *under DOS*.
The governing
> > > factor whether F-Prot will run properly on the platform is the OS,
*not* the
> > > target drive file system. As Frisk explained here, years ago, the
problem is
> > > with the DOS extender used.
> >
> > So, the answer to "Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??" is still
no if
> > F-Prot for DOS and XP's DOS emulation are indicated? Using NTFS4DOS
> > indicates the user is not using XP's DOS emulator and so the "XP
> > platform" part of the question is not relevant to the answer "If you
use
> > NTFS4DOS it wil". It's like answering "Linux" to the question "What
is
> > the best AV". Smile

)
>
> Idiotic sophistry.

Does it make you feel all high and mighty to belittle other's comments?

> It depends on what you understand as an "XP platform".

A platform 'running' XP.

> A PC with only XP
> installed will be considered by most users as an XP platform, even
when switched
> off.

Anything that makes a computer malfunction will be considered a virus by
most users - so what, are we defining things by what most users think? A
deenergized computer has hardware and that can be considered a hardware
platform for the type of software that platform supports. Anything
beyond that requires an active software environment, that is the
hardware coupled with the active software (OS) becomes a platform for
software that "they" support.

> Hence, not the running OS is what makes it a "platform", the installed
> system does.
>
> I stand by my statement.

Very well, I'll just file it away with the other unique definitions you
have for things.

Maynard · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 1

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:44:58 -0400, "Roger Wilco"
<yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Zvi Netiv" <support.TakeThisOut@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
>> "Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
>> > "Zvi Netiv" <support.TakeThisOut@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
>> > >

>Does it make you feel all high and mighty to belittle other's comments?
>
>> It depends on what you understand as an "XP platform".
>
>A platform 'running' XP.
>
>> A PC with only XP
>> installed will be considered by most users as an XP platform, even
>when switched
>> off.
>
>Anything that makes a computer malfunction will be considered a virus by
>most users - so what, are we defining things by what most users think? A
>deenergized computer has hardware and that can be considered a hardware
>platform for the type of software that platform supports. Anything
>beyond that requires an active software environment, that is the
>hardware coupled with the active software (OS) becomes a platform for
>software that "they" support.
>
>> Hence, not the running OS is what makes it a "platform", the installed
>> system does.
>>
>> I stand by my statement.
>
>Very well, I'll just file it away with the other unique definitions you
>have for things.
>

Hardware platforms: x86-risc