Battle Forticlient 5.6 vs. Kaspersky 2018 Free

[ifacedown]

Hello!

I have used Kaspersky 2018 Free before and found it enough for my needs. I have a low-end netbook. I want a free solution, and I am skippin on Avast, AVG, Avira, 360, Bitdefender Free and the rest. Either of the two (Forticlient or Kaspersky Free) I could complement with Zemana Antimalware Premium (lifetime), and McShield. Pls help me know which one is better in terms of:

1) Lightness - less RAM (I only have 2GB), less CPU usage, less disk access
2) Efficiency - blocking malware (file malware and web filtering)
3) 0-day malware and ransomware protection

Thanks!

 

[abdou17]

1/Web protection = Forticlient (with more FPs)
2/Signatures = Equal (more FPs in FC)
3/Usage = Kaspersky
4/0-Day malware and ransomware protection = None of them

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

An antivirus won't speed up your system. Think about isolating your system or about Linux.
Forticlient is better than a static engine but Forticlient is rather unsuitable for you.

 

[ifacedown]

An antivirus won't speed up your system. Think about isolating your system or about Linux.
Forticlient is better than a static engine but Forticlient is rather unsuitable for you.

You mean Forticlient may be heavy on my system?

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

1) Web Protection - FortiClient (by a longshot)
2) Signatures - Toss up. (with ZOO enabled on FC)
3) Weight - Kaspersky, it's slightly lighter. (but not significantly so)
4) 0 Day, Exploit, etc. - FortiClient, it has anti-exploit/anti-coinminer/Anti-Botnet modules. Kaspersky offers nothing.

So in the end, FortiClient would be your best option.

 

[ifacedown]

1) Web Protection - FortiClient (by a longshot)
2) Signatures - Toss up. (with ZOO enabled on FC)
3) Weight - Kaspersky, it's slightly lighter. (but not significantly so)
4) 0 Day, Exploit, etc. - FortiClient, it has anti-exploit/anti-coinminer/Anti-Botnet modules. Kaspersky offers nothing.

So in the end, FortiClient would be your best option.

Thanks so much! Now using it and it feels so good! Many processes but seem light on my system!

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Thanks so much! Now using it and it feels so good! Many processes but seem light on my system!

You are well protected with Zemana Real-Time backing up FortiClient.

 

[permar4]

I voted kaspersky, but rather because I didn't know fortclient at all, it seems in a certain way more complete than kaspersky free, but also seen on some web site that is heavy on the system.

At least looking at the evidence and everything it offers has awakened my interest to try it one day, I will follow the comments here also to learn more about forclient, since I have found little material on the internet, it is very little known.

 

[Ink]

If you running Windows 10 - since you haven't specified in thread for whatever reason.

This can provide a friendly on-screen notification before you "accidentally" install a Win32 app. It does not block Win32 apps that are already installed.

Open Settings > Apps & Features > Install apps > Change to "Warn me [...]".

Installing third-party Antivirus apps can cause issues on some devices, especially after a certain Windows Update or OS Update. There are the risks of buggy client software updates, which usually have delayed fixes or lame workarounds. Occasionally you'll get a new feature you don't want to see (ie. monthly security reports). And don't forget the AV updating whilst you work on your report, consuming your CPU and Read/Writes, as you try and save your word document on the laggy low-spec device. Topped of by "A restart is required to finish installation".

If you're limited on RAM, why not use use the included features of Windows Defender Security Centre such as, Antivirus, Firewall, Controlled Folder Access, Exploit Protection (assuming anyone knows how to use it) and App & Browser Control (Smartscreen). It's all there.

Running ZAM in real-time will demand more of the limited hardware, obviously.

Use Chrome or Firefox, with Malware and Phishing protection enabled (Google Safe Browsing), an Ad Blocker and any extension that may prevent dangerous websites.

Look at IBM Quad9 DNS or similar services.

Don't be click happy.

Finally, why not look at a Non-AV Non-signature approach?

 

[bribon77]

FortiClient has more modules than KAF.
But I see it more secure with Kaspersky.

 

[simmerskool]

1) Web Protection - FortiClient (by a longshot)
4) 0 Day, Exploit, etc. - FortiClient, it has anti-exploit/anti-coinminer/Anti-Botnet modules. Kaspersky offers nothing.
So in the end, FortiClient would be your best option.

ForgottenSeer 58943
Once forticlient is installed, can you enable just the web protection and disable real-time av and some of other features, or does that cause unintended problems?

 

[abdou17]

ForgottenSeer 58943
Once forticlient is installed, can you enable just the web protection and disable real-time av and some of other features, or does that cause unintended problems?

You can install just the web protection

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I personally choose Kaspersky because
1/ kaspersky has better signatures even with forticlient enabling all customized options via ini file, check the hub for more info (check the static scan only, kaspersky was tested first but still detected more)
2/ kaspersky has less impact than forti. I found forticlient very heavy while testing. It caused relatively high, persistent CPU usage especially when malwares were running
3/ web filters are similar, sometimes kaspersky is better, sometimes forti is better but forti is a bit better in overall
4/ none of them provide true zero-day protection. Forti has some above mentioned modules but they DIDN'T work in my test. For example, exploit shield was supposed to block payloads from wscript.exe but when I executed malwares from scripts (.js), forti failed and the system was infected
5/ kaspersky DOES have anti-cryptominer protection, which is a part of web shield although they don't mention it. Open some mining websites and you will see it
6/ forti has more conflicts with softwares due to its anti-exploit module and 1 module in file shield
FortiClient locking up Opera browser issue
7/ kaspersky can be tweaked for much better performance (enable "scan on execution"). For forti,not many things you can do. I found enabling 2 cores in ini affects the context scan only (2 processes appeared and scanned), not sure about the realtime protection

when it comes to zero-day protection, both of them are not good (post-execution) and should be paired with another security product

 

[ifacedown]

I personally choose Kaspersky because
1/ kaspersky has better signatures even with forticlient enabling all customized options via ini file, check the hub for more info (check the static scan only, kaspersky was tested first but still detected more)
2/ kaspersky has less impact than forti. I found forticlient very heavy while testing. It caused relatively high, persistent CPU usage especially when malwares were running
3/ web filters are similar, sometimes kaspersky is better, sometimes forti is better but forti is a bit better in overall
4/ none of them provide true zero-day protection. Forti has some above mentioned modules but they DIDN'T work in my test. For example, exploit shield was supposed to block payloads from wscript.exe but when I executed malwares from scripts (.js), forti failed and the system was infected
5/ kaspersky DOES have anti-cryptominer protection, which is a part of web shield although they don't mention it. Open some mining websites and you will see it
6/ forti has more conflicts with softwares due to its anti-exploit module and 1 module in file shield
FortiClient locking up Opera browser issue
7/ kaspersky can be tweaked for much better performance (enable "scan on execution"). For forti,not many things you can do. I found enabling 2 cores in ini affects the context scan only (2 processes appeared and scanned), not sure about the realtime protection

when it comes to zero-day protection, both of them are not good (post-execution) and should be paired with another security product

Thanks much! I haven't realised that Kaspersky Free could provide this level of protection with little tweaking, though inadequate as a whole.

As a side note, after several hours and upon launching some apps, I already notice some lags on my system with Forticlient installed. Gonna try this Forti + Zemana for a few more days.

 

[ifacedown]

If you running Windows 10 - since you haven't specified in thread for whatever reason.

This can provide a friendly on-screen notification before you "accidentally" install a Win32 app. It does not block Win32 apps that are already installed.
View attachment 182743
Open Settings > Apps & Features > Install apps > Change to "Warn me [...]".

Installing third-party Antivirus apps can cause issues on some devices, especially after a certain Windows Update or OS Update. There are the risks of buggy client software updates, which usually have delayed fixes or lame workarounds. Occasionally you'll get a new feature you don't want to see (ie. monthly security reports). And don't forget the AV updating whilst you work on your report, consuming your CPU and Read/Writes, as you try and save your word document on the laggy low-spec device. Topped of by "A restart is required to finish installation".

If you're limited on RAM, why not use use the included features of Windows Defender Security Centre such as, Antivirus, Firewall, Controlled Folder Access, Exploit Protection (assuming anyone knows how to use it) and App & Browser Control (Smartscreen). It's all there.

Running ZAM in real-time will demand more of the limited hardware, obviously.

Use Chrome or Firefox, with Malware and Phishing protection enabled (Google Safe Browsing), an Ad Blocker and any extension that may prevent dangerous websites.

Look at IBM Quad9 DNS or similar services.

Don't be click happy.

Finally, why not look at a Non-AV Non-signature approach?

Thanks so much for your suggestions!

1) I am a very careful user, not click-happy. I use Firefox Quantum (oh yeah!) with uBlock Origins.
2) I have McShield too, enabled which is very good against USB Malware.
3) I will never return to Windows Defender. I find it HEAVY on the system. The only one thing that it doesn't affect negatively is the Windows Boot time. But it is heavy on the HDD and sometimes on CPU too. And yes, I have used its new features before.

Pls suggest to me some non-AV Non-Signature approach. I have tried Voodooshield and EXERadarPro before.

 

[ifacedown]

ForgottenSeer 58943
Once forticlient is installed, can you enable just the web protection and disable real-time av and some of other features, or does that cause unintended problems?

The latest installer of FortiClient allows you to choose what to install. You could even choose not to install its AV, or the SandBox, or etc.

 

[simmerskool]

You can install just the web protection

thanks!

 

[simmerskool]

The latest installer of FortiClient allows you to choose what to install. You could even choose not to install its AV, or the SandBox, or etc.

thanks!!