sending a file to f-prot

Have now heard from fprot.
They have sent me a page which has allowed me to send them the file.
I now wait their analysis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 27 Dec 2004 04:37:41 -0800, "species8350"
<not_here.5.species8350 RemoveThis @xoxy.net> wrote:

>Have now heard from fprot.
>They have sent me a page which has allowed me to send them the file.
>I now wait their analysis


I once tried to send them a file that was infected. Their reply
was that it was a "trojan horse" not a virus, so they refused
to do anything about it. I've since quit using F-Prot and am
now using AVG. Much better IMO.





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Cyber-Knights Templar build 6.5.8ckt
Comment: Fingerprint: 5FAF CD59 8D98 6213 842E DFDF 47C8 BAC0 60F3 925F

iQA/AwUBQdODkUfIusBg85JfEQITYQCeOwyZBIf5SOSB/xYAL4UySOtdIQsAoNfc
BjcK3Q6+vU3alZPgiGIxtiFc
=qAHt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"csm" <csm31660 RemoveThis @NOSPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pn07t0po0spl4omgssnhrufsvbgbkkuoci@4ax.com...

> On 27 Dec 2004 04:37:41 -0800, "species8350"
> <not_here.5.species8350 RemoveThis @xoxy.net> wrote:
>
> >Have now heard from fprot.
> >They have sent me a page which has allowed me to send them the file.
> >I now wait their analysis
>
>
> I once tried to send them a file that was infected. Their reply
> was that it was a "trojan horse" not a virus, so they refused
> to do anything about it. I've since quit using F-Prot and am
> now using AVG. Much better IMO.

LOL!

Not laughing at you - it just seems that judging an AV by how well it
detects trojans is a little like judging cars by how well they float.
That is not to say floating can't be a good feature for a car.

I sent them a large file, and they just told me that it slowed their
scanner because it was large and that they were updating their
antivirus engine. I still don't know why it stopped my scanner
Happy new year

A

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:58:00 GMT, null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:43:24 -0500, "Roger Wilco"
>> Oversnipped wrote

>>> I once tried to send them a file that was infected. Their reply
>>> was that it was a "trojan horse" not a virus, so they refused
>>> to do anything about it.

>>...judging an AV by how well it detects trojans is a little like
>>judging cars by how well they float.

>Some av products detect many thousands of Trojans and
>stay right on top of new ones found in the wiild. AV is no longer anti
>_virus_. It's anti _malware_ and has been for quite some time now.

Yes; we have come to expect different things from an av.

I expect an av to detect all traditional (i.e. non-commercial)
malware, be they trojans, worms or viruses. After all, some detect
keygens and other tools the user may actually want; they really should
detect off-the-peg software stealthed in that the user doesn't want.

When it comes to post-penetration scanning, I expect a formal av (e.g.
F-Prot for DOS) to detect every malware that may be unsafe or
impossible to detect from within Windows. And yes, I find F-Prot for
DOS still misses some non-commercial RATs to this day, and though they
improved thier reporting, F-Prot still uses generic descriptions
rather than specific names for many of the trojans it does detect.

Commercial malware is another matter; traditional av can be expected
to be weak on this, and though some are improving, I'd still use
AdAware, Spybot and HiJackThis for these. A problem with relying on a
single tool for commercial malware, is that the scanner may be
compelled to drop detection of a particular cm due to legal pressure.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
"He's such a character!"
' Yeah - CHAR(0) '
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

"Roger Wilco" <yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid> wrote in message
news:10t91asfsfg4p61@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "csm" <csm31660.TakeThisOut@NOSPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:pn07t0po0spl4omgssnhrufsvbgbkkuoci@4ax.com...
>
> > On 27 Dec 2004 04:37:41 -0800, "species8350"
> > <not_here.5.species8350.TakeThisOut@xoxy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Have now heard from fprot.
> > >They have sent me a page which has allowed me to send them the
file.
> > >I now wait their analysis
> >
> >
> > I once tried to send them a file that was infected. Their reply
> > was that it was a "trojan horse" not a virus, so they refused
> > to do anything about it. I've since quit using F-Prot and am
> > now using AVG. Much better IMO.
>
> LOL!
>
> Not laughing at you - it just seems that judging an AV by how well
it
> detects trojans is a little like judging cars by how well they
float.
> That is not to say floating can't be a good feature for a car.

If Ted Kennedy had been driving a VW (Beetle) he'd have been
president! (referring to old VW ad)
--
Chas. verktyg.TakeThisOut@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)