F-Prot

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
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:42 GMT, Art <null.RemoveThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

"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. )
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

"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. )

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.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

"Zvi Netiv" <support.DeleteThis@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:u8bpe1t9kig0li6fnecmn9cpj08j0bve06@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman.DeleteThis@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "* * Chas" <dnafutz.DeleteThis@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > "James Egan" <jegan.DeleteThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

"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". )
>
> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot 

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

>
>"Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
>> "Roger Wilco" <yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
>> > "Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman DeleteThis @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
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot