Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window?

"Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:r4lu51tctjqkvo5o37i8ko14tfigku5u14@4ax.com...
> Franklin <no_thanks DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> I don't think that multiple on-demand scanners are a good idea nor
necessary (in
> case of an ambiguity you can always try online inspection, like
VirusTotal) but
> you made your requirements very clear.

Zvi,

I've run into enough false positives over the years to feel a need for
at least 1 backup AV scanner.

I had a weird thing happen last year. I still have the final update of
Dr. Solomons installed on one of my older systems. I ran across some
malware that overwrote my Notepad.exe.

The heuristics in the old Dr. Solomons was the only thing I had that
identified the particular WM32 virus that caused the problem (it was
weeks before NAV, KAV and F-Prot listed this specific villain).
--
Chas. verktyg DeleteThis @aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

"* * Chas" <dnafutz.RemoveThis@aol.spam.com> wrote:
> "Zvi Netiv" <support.RemoveThis@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message

> > I don't think that multiple on-demand scanners are a good idea nor necessary (in
> > case of an ambiguity you can always try online inspection, like VirusTotal) but
> > you made your requirements very clear.
>
> Zvi,
>
> I've run into enough false positives over the years to feel a need for
> at least 1 backup AV scanner.

You should be new to this newsgroup to tell me this. My position, for
years, has been that you don't need even a single scanner to keep your system
protected from malware. The use for scanners, in my view, is the identification
of affecting malware, and cleaning from. Detection and prevention are better
handled by generic means without depending on critical updates. A white paper
that describes that approach is available from www.invircible.com/item/65

Scanners have their use as stated above, but you need not tying yourself to any
particular product for that purpose, you can always submit the suspicious
sample, detected by generic means, for online inspection, and then choose the
best available removal tool for the particular malware. In many cases there
will be no dedicated cleaner yet and the generic means will be the only thing
available to contain the attack.

> I had a weird thing happen last year. I still have the final update of
> Dr. Solomons installed on one of my older systems. I ran across some
> malware that overwrote my Notepad.exe.
>
> The heuristics in the old Dr. Solomons was the only thing I had that
> identified the particular WM32 virus that caused the problem (it was
> weeks before NAV, KAV and F-Prot listed this specific villain).

I wouldn't draw any operational conclusions from that anecdotal event. If
curious, then read in www.invircible.com/item/81 how to generally handle PE
infectors without depending on virus definition updates.

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

On 18 Apr 2005 04:20:31 -0500, Howard Schwartz <howardbschwartz4 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If you have a fat-32 file system, I do not see why you
> can not simply start your PC with a floppy running
> some version of real mode dos 7x, and use F-Prot with
> no problems: The program should have no problem with
> filenames in this case.
>
I have been using exactlly this method with F-prot for several
years now and it works perfectly. I use DOS-7 borrowed from
my Windows 95 laptop to produce a boot disk. F-prot itself is
too big to run from a floppy so it has its own directory on the C-drive.

> Is it that the dos version of F-Prot does not know
> the virus signatures of programs that run only under
> XP? No - that could not be true, since the data
> tables are the same as for the shareware version, yes?
>
I use two signature files, fp-def.zip and macrdef2.zip.
It only takes a few minutes to download them from
F-Prot's FTP server and un-zip them to the f-prot directory
on the C:drive. I also keep a copy of the EICAR virus
test file stashed somewhere on the hard drive and
expect to see it detected whenever F-prot is run.
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

Howard Schwartz <howardbschwartz4 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Franklin <no_thanks DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote in news:96376341F26CA71F3M4@
> 204.153.244.156:
>
> > Is it possible to run the free "F-Prot for DOS" in the DOS-emulation
> > window of XP?
> >
> > I want to use "F-Prot for DOS" as an on-demand scanner to supplement
> > my existing anti-virus software.
>
> There seems to be some agreement that, successfully running F-Prot
> depends more on the OS you are running, rather than the file system.

Not "more", but uniquely.

> Presumably the Dos emulation of win 2k or XP knows how to read
> filenames in the NTFS format and deliver them to dos programs?

There is no filename "standard" that is special to NTFS only. Long filenames
were introduced with the advent of 32 bit operating systems and are not bound to
the file system. The LFN standard also sets the conventions how long filenames
are to be represented under older OS that do not support LFN and how to assure
compatibility between the two.

> I converted my win 2K to fat-32 anyway so I could have some decent
> freeware tools to handle the disk and some compatibility with
> prior programs and versions of windows.
>
> I wonder if using the Dos-Box emulation under XP would help
> F-prot?

It was already explained in several posts of this thread that it will not help.
The DOS box under ALL Windows versions, including those that still have DOS in
the basement (Win 9x AND Me, although the latter pretends as if there is no DOS
in its cellar) is not true DOS. Under NT / W2K and XP, it's even less "true"
DOS than under 9x/Me.

> Other dos programs that do not run correctly under
> XP's shell, command.com, or cmd.exe -- seem to run OK under
> the better Dos-Box emulation.

I now do a lot of the work that I previously did under Win 98, for the reason
that you mention, under XP's 4NT shell (the same as 4DOS, but for W2K/XP). The
only real difference between the two DOS shells is direct disk access, which is
not allowed under NT/W2K/XP. Antivirus software need that service to inspect
boot and partition sectors.

> If you have a fat-32 file system, I do not see why you
> can not simply start your PC with a floppy running
> some version of real mode dos 7x, and use F-Prot with
> no problems: The program should have no problem with
> filenames in this case.

FYI, a boot disk for Windows 98 is DOS 7x. Besides of being pointless (you can
always use the Windows version of the scanner from safe mode with command
prompt), scanning from DOS boot is limited to a path length of 64 characters,
which is exceeded on many PCs.

> Is it that the dos version of F-Prot does not know
> the virus signatures of programs that run only under
> XP? No - that could not be true, since the data
> tables are the same as for the shareware version, yes?

F-Prot for DOS and Windows use exactly the same virus definition files.

In case you didn't see it, then here is advice from the horse's mouth (Frisk):
Under XP / W2K and NT, rather use the command line scanner FPCMD.EXE, available
from the Windows version instead of F-PROT.EXE.

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:38:51 +0100, "Mel"
<news.spammel RemoveThis @spamgourmet.com> typed furiously:

>
>"Franklin" <no_thanks RemoveThis @mail.com> wrote in message news:963B906B3633271F3M4@204.153.244.156...
>> On Fri 15 Apr 2005 23:42:40, MEL wrote:
>> <news:42606c10@news.greennet.net>
>>
[,,,]
>
>My problem with Mwav (escan.exe) affected a couple of programs
>start-up entries, neither of which specify the full path.
>
>One is MS Intellipoint: message from Mwav's log:-
>
>"ERROR!!! Invalid Entry POINTER = point32.exe (in key SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run). Removing it."
>
You mean that it just went ahead and did it without asking for
confirmation? That would be enough for me to ditch it.

--
David
Remove "farook" to reply
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

"David" <farookdas RemoveThis @picknowl.com.au> wrote in message news:sek76150hbtfaieqakitjnomkruk2lqgtf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:38:51 +0100, "Mel"
> <news.spammel RemoveThis @spamgourmet.com> typed furiously:
>
> >
> >"Franklin" <no_thanks RemoveThis @mail.com> wrote in message news:963B906B3633271F3M4@204.153.244.156...
> >> On Fri 15 Apr 2005 23:42:40, MEL wrote:
> >> <news:42606c10@news.greennet.net>
> >>
> [,,,]
> >
> >My problem with Mwav (escan.exe) affected a couple of programs
> >start-up entries, neither of which specify the full path.
> >
> >One is MS Intellipoint: message from Mwav's log:-
> >
> >"ERROR!!! Invalid Entry POINTER = point32.exe (in key SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run). Removing it."
> >
> You mean that it just went ahead and did it without asking for
> confirmation? That would be enough for me to ditch it.

It did, one of the reasons I use Antidote.

Also, although Antidote has fewer scan options, I find them
more useful.

One minor problem with it: the list view for the scan results is
very small, right clicking on it gives the option to save the results.
Unfortunately with Windows 98 this can cause an invalid page fault
- I'm told this hasn't occured on a machine running XP.
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

Howard Schwartz <howardbschwartz4 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zvi Netiv <support RemoveThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in
>
> > There is no filename "standard" that is special to NTFS only. Long
> > filenames were introduced with the advent of 32 bit operating systems
> > and are not bound to the file system. The LFN standard also sets the
> > conventions how long filenames are to be represented under older OS
> > that do not support LFN and how to assure compatibility between the
> > two.
>
> I was not referring to the `standard'. I thought the NTFS master file table
> stored filenames of whatever sort (long, short, etc.) in a different want
> than the Fat tables of old. Not true?

Under the FAT file system, names are stored in blocks known as "directory". The
FAT itself holds just pointer chains to clusters, nothing else . The link
between a file entry in a directory block and its clusters chain in the FAT is
the number of the first cluster. MFT is a totally different system.

> If true, would a program need to know
> how to read the new table?

Not at all. It's the operating system that provides file and directory
services. The problem from which F-Prot for DOS suffers (under NT based OS) is
the selection of the wrong 32bit extender at a very early stage. Fact that
other DOS scanners don't have that problem.

> Probably not, since it would query the bios
> which would know how to do this?

Another wild speculation of yours. The BIOS provides no file services
whatsoever, not even under DOS. It's the operating system that takes care of
these. Besides, BIOS routines play no role under NT based systems, they are
replaced by the OS own.

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

"* * Chas" <dnafutz.TakeThisOut@aol.spam.com> in news:84mdnZpXx-k9Lf3fRVn-1g@comcast.com:

> I run F-Prot from desktop Icons to check specific folders or drives,
> for example my floppy drive:
>
> C:\F-PROT\F-PROT.EXE A:\ /ARCHIVE /PACKED /BEEP /DUMB

i have links to download update defs. then i extract to a shortcut (to teh fprot program). then i go to a folder with a batch that
reports, append to a file.

i've been runnig it on XP without ever thinking about the ntfs difference.

frprot always runs in a dos or dos-like window, i guess. it always runs it's own full size DOS-text window. (no mouse, you have
to use tab, esc, enter keys, and type in paths if you want fprot to be particular. which is why i made up a short command-line
BAT, just as you wrote a command-line shortcut)
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window? 

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:00:20 +0000 (UTC), "MsOsWin@anon.com"
<MsOsWin.RemoveThis@anon.com> wrote:

>i've been runnig it on XP without ever thinking about the ntfs difference.

How many times does it have to be said? It is NOTHING to do with ntfs.
The problem is with the XP operating system NOT the ntfs filesystem.


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window?