- May 31, 2015
- 472
FortiClient 6.0.0 (Windows)
- Thread starter Fel Grossi
- Start date
- Jul 29, 2018
- 566
You are welcomethen most likely that's a visual bug what I'm getting. Thanks for the help,mate
Did you try reinstall?then most likely that's a visual bug what I'm getting
- May 31, 2015
- 472
Nope, not till now. But now, it seems I have to. It's our orthodox style to fix anything software related
.
- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,716
This is what I was wondering if maybe @yitworths was seeing in the client software (only web filtering present). I see he has actually installed but disabled the A-V. So @yitworths, you could save config and reinstall without the a-v module to save GUI load time I suppose if that interests you.
I thought maybe without the A-V module installed the GUI would change and move the "potentially malicious" filters to the Web Security/Filtering tab. Looks like Fortinet thought of everything. At any rate, once I saw @yitsworth's pictures I understood that he was seeing the same thing I see with the "possibly malicious" in the A-V settings. Appreciate your picture @imuade. Helped me understand the program a little bit better
.BTW, just for the record, I have the same setup on two PCs here that are always on, so I can always verify things twice about FortiClient.
LOL
, I have been doing 9 things at a time this morning too. I was trying to guess how FortiClient software looks without the A-V installed, but it is installed on your system->just disabled. @imuade's pic cleared that one up for me.
- May 29, 2018
- 2,728
So the vulnerability signatures are for vulnerability scan and the actual web filter is working on cloud level right? And you can check those cloud signature dates + details from forticlinet web site?
So if you install web filter only, its working on cloud level and the signature / engine updates doesnt matter
So if you install web filter only, its working on cloud level and the signature / engine updates doesnt matter
- May 31, 2015
- 472
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,613
fwiw I have the same version 1.00169 & my interface says up to date
with last check 30_aug 1613. I'm not seeing a tweak to tell if how often to update. That means I guess 1.00169 was pushed to me 30_aug @1613 and nothing new since then..?
Last edited:
- May 31, 2015
- 472
yea, you are correct.This is my forticlient's interface
. & what you've seen at that moment that was for TairikuOkami. As I intended to check his issues.
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,613
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,613
- May 31, 2015
- 472
Just keep an eye on fortiwf you will find your answer.not sure, that's not obvious to me here, as least not yet...???
- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,716
not sure, that's not obvious to me here, as least not yet...???
Have you tried new malicious links? Maybe that will help verify. BTW, if you have Comodo web filtering on, it seems to be doing a good job as back up for me...just in case you don't get a block from FortiClient should you test:
If FortiClient reports new links by one of the "potentially malicious" categories when it blocks a site, that should indicate that indeed it is a purely cloud mechanism. I tried a few at VXVault if you have the courage to go for it. You can see in the pic one of them. All of them were the same domain. I know you have very good protection in place, but I didn't like testing on a normal system either. Systems here are like yours I believe with Comodo FW + FortiClient + OSArmor.
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,613
ok, from what I see fortiwf is on, with network activity... meaning... it is using its cloud and v1.00169...? It's sunday am and I've only had 1 cup of coffee so far...
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,613
- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,716
yea, you are correct.This is my forticlient's interface
OK, thanks for clarifying. For anyone who is has a question about installing FortiClient, users who install FortiClient with the A-V will see a slightly different GUI with a tab on the left for "Malware Protection". For "Web Security" only installation of FortiClient, the "potentially malicious" filter settings will be in "Web Security" rather than in the A-V settings of "Malware Protection"
- May 29, 2018
- 2,728
v1.00169 means signatures of vulnerability scanner
I firstly though that meant web filter signatures, but there is no web filter signatures to be updated at all
It means Web filter runs on cloud level, and is updated itself
- Jul 29, 2018
- 566
I personally feel FortiClient with just Web filter has edge over Heimdal Pro(Thor Foresight Home) since you can set categories which to block and phishing detection is high, I know Heimdal is lacking in that one, also, for me it seems any Web blocking extension can be removed, while I would still use atleast one of the WDBP/Avira/Malwarebytes extension alongside Heimdal Pro. FortiClient Web filtering is very nice with zero system weight or impact on browsing speed, plus the fact it's free.
- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,716
True, and the A-V detection is crystal sharp too for anyone who installs the a-v.
The two systems integrate extraordinarily well, so it's possible to imagine how powerful the full system must be. There are several configuration options within the XML just for the a-v that make the whole program feel like it could be any of 40 different programs, honestly. Also, the ease of exporting/importing settings is fantastic. Once settings are achieved, export them to any machine, and they will work reliably. The flexibility of the program for an a-v, is what I am liking so far the most. I am very impressed with this aspect of use.
I want extreme sigs, so it's easy to achieve in FortiClient and with options for detection and scanning and removal etc.. Very nice indeed. Excellent match for Comodo Firewall, a combination which mimics to the best degree possible for two programs the full Fortinet system.
