I stumbled upon this yesterday and it seems that CIS has a real competitor from Fortinet. Fortinet just released a free Security suite quite comparable to CIS, of course nothing compares to D+ ;). However, it is a good suite worth a try.
Im testing it out atm actually and it seems pretty good. Ive tested it againts about 15 links so far and nothing seems to have got through. But my virtual machine has just started running really slow :-. Its got a built in VPN service which is pretty cool ( haven’t used it though) and the the app detection doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
Overall i like it its got an easy to use interface ( but some pop ups appear behind windows) and the signatures seems pretty good for new malware. Be good to hear what other people think.
Nah i wont be leaving CIS. Im using Microsoft virtual pc. After i wrote that post explorer.exe crashed and i had to reset the VM. After it rebooted i ran a malwarebytes scan and it found 14 infected items. Some where temp internet files but there were a few in the system32 directory and some reg keys. Looks like it didn’t block it all after all.
Could you please, if you have the time today, test Forticlient self protection with task manager and Process Explorer in order to see how well FortiClient protects its processes from termination. I hope it provides kernel level protection like CIS. Thanks.
It’s just my opinion, mind you, but I’m thinking that Comodo now has a competitor whose product is worth worrying about… or at least keeping an eye on.
Fortinet’s FortiClient Endpoint Security Suite Standard Edition has, as part of that company’s “No Computer Left Behind Initiative,” become freeware.
FortiClient Endpoint Security Suite Standard Edition
It claims to be a true “endpoint” security product, and its features include:
Antivirus/Antispyware engine, SSL and IPSec VPN clients, Personal Firewall protection, Intrusion Prevention, Web Filtering, Endpoint Application Detection, Endpoint Monitoring and Control, WAN Optimization, Anti-Rootkit Protection, Pre- and Post-Execution Behavioral Analysis, Real-Time Poisoned Webpage Protection, and FortiGuard update services.
Reports on the performance and reliability of the product are all over the map; but the more reasonable and trustworthy folks whose opinions I’ve read out there say its anti-virus detection is fairly poor, with questionable heuristics and lots of false positives; and its firewall isn’t quite ready for primetime. Reports are that it also screws around with folder sharing on a LAN; and it scored poorly in Matousec.
However, it is VERY lightweight, fast, looks nice and – especially when compared with CIS – is very user friendly. Plus, its feature list is just plain impressive.
However, it’s obviously not ready to give CIS a run for its money…
One way to fend off any future competition it could provide might (and I stress the word “might”) be for Comodo to add as many of FortiClient’s features as possible… which couldn’t hurt CIS in any case.
I’m not saying it’s anything for Comodo to worry about; but if it ever one day becomes that, you can say that you read it here first, folks. [grin]
ADDENDUM: I would have appreciated it if the moderator had not combined my thread into this one, but I guess there’s nothing I can do about it. I’ve moderated several forums, and I have always been very careful to respect the intent of thread starters. My thread was intentionally cautionary; but this one seems almost (and I stress the word “almost”) to celebrate. Nuance matters. I would ask that mine be more respected in the future. (Added 9/4/2009 at 8:35 AM PDT)
You know, I could just not get Rising to install on my 32-bit Vista SP2 (on a 2007-model HP Pavillion notebook). It was really weird… and I really wanted to fiddle around with it.
To those of you testing FortiClient: I’d sure be interested in knowing how your own tests compared with some of the stuff I’ve been reading out in the world about this thing. One guy wrote in a blog just this morning that only something like 10 out of 21 of his “test” viruses were detected… and that NONE of the viruses coming from Asian places like Brontok and Almanahe were detected.
He’s the one, also, who, though not the first to mention FortiClient’s interfering with sharing on a LAN, seems to be the first to have found a workaround. He wrote: “I’ve even configured the firewall to ‘Pass All’ which means disabling the firewall, setting the network as Trusted zone and set the security level to Low but still cannot access shared folders. Finally I disabled webfilter and now I can access any shared folders on the network.”
Oy! So, obviously, FortiClient’s got some issues.
He also wrote, just FYI: [i]"After installing FortiClient on a clean Windows XP Professional SP3 with all latest hotfixes, I am seeing a total of 8 processes with 58MB memory being taken up. Running a full system scan with normal scan priority only takes up 30% CPU usage in average. FortiClient took 9 minutes and 38 seconds to complete scanning 21817 items which is also pretty fast. When I ran a full system scan again the next day, it took only 5 minutes and 2 seconds to scan 21815 files. Very likely FortiClient maintains a database of ‘safe files not to scan’ to cut down the scanning time.
“I’ve also tested FortiClient against my private trojan since it came with a firewall and intrusion detection. First of all, the virus signature cannot detect the trojan. When it comes to heuristic analysis, FortiClient also fails to detect any injection. Then I connected my test computer from my laptop using the backdoor trojan, there was no warning on the intrusion detection.”[/i]
So, apparently this guy has written his own trojan, which he uses for testing. Interesting. And, FortiClient apparently failed, miserably, against it. (I sure hope this guy’s not writing anything which ultimately gets released to the wild!)
Anyway… just tryin’ to share. I just don’t want to see this product get ahead of CIS in any way…
…not that it might be capable of that, it seems, from what everyone’s writing. Then again, CIS had some serious weaknesses once, too.