Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations bkrike on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Virus Security for Windows 2000 Server Based Network
- Thread starter suseli
- Start date
Trend Micro
Symantec
CA's etrust
Take your pick...choose your poison. They'll all protect you as good as the next.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
Symantec
CA's etrust
Take your pick...choose your poison. They'll all protect you as good as the next.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
LWComputingMVP
IS-IT--Management
I DO NOT recommend Symantec. I've seen too many issues with their products and they are way too lazy with their updates (signified by my recent billing of a client over $1600 to troubleshoot a malware problem that symantec didn't catch, but Dr. Web (with 3 month old definitions, I might add) DID catch. Symantec caught it 3 days later... Is that the kind of service you want protecting your business?
I prefer McAfee... they are resource intensive, they are potentially expensive, BUT THEY WORK. Next to Sophos, they typically (NOT ALWAYS, but a good percentage of the time) will have definitions out very fast.
Another alternative would be Sophos. I saw demonstrations of their small business suite a couple of months ago and it looked very good (and as I said, they discover and provide definitions VERY quickly, per
Trend, I believe, is decent too. For more (and interesting) information, check out:
I prefer McAfee... they are resource intensive, they are potentially expensive, BUT THEY WORK. Next to Sophos, they typically (NOT ALWAYS, but a good percentage of the time) will have definitions out very fast.
Another alternative would be Sophos. I saw demonstrations of their small business suite a couple of months ago and it looked very good (and as I said, they discover and provide definitions VERY quickly, per
Trend, I believe, is decent too. For more (and interesting) information, check out:
For every product available on the market, you will find someone who has a horror story about it, and someone who will sing it's praises.
Your mileage may vary, as always, with an opinion based question.
Pick your poison and have fun with it.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
Your mileage may vary, as always, with an opinion based question.
Pick your poison and have fun with it.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
LWComputingMVP
IS-IT--Management
Davetoo,
This is very true, everyone's mileage will differ... however, software is easier to generalize than hardware. The link I provided illustrates the effectiveness of various products and Norton is not high on the list. Further, the link below illustrates that Norton is a system hog in terms of resources. Unlike hardware which can fail seemingly randomly and some people may be more or less lucky with one brand over another, software is generally quantifiable.
Norton, for me, has been an ineffective pain... it works when it doesn't have to and fails miserably when you need it most. And then support won't help you unless you have a contract handy (My client DID have a contract through their parent company... but that didn't seem to matter to symantec). When the MSBlaster worm arrived years ago, I had a similar experience - McAfee caught it after a few hours, Symantec didn't catch it for two days. Didn't try McAfee on this issue, but again, they used symantec... and symantec failed miserably to detect what Dr. Web (and subsequent web sites) called an Rbot variant.
Now if you're never hit with a virus you may think Norton works great... but if you are, then TIME is VERY important. Symantec is slow in many cases. They have proven it time and again.
The only sport I care to follow is baseball - and Symantec Antivirus protection is a bit like a closer who can close out the everyday games... but put them in a critical situation and they blow it seemingly every time. (Armando Benitez).
This is very true, everyone's mileage will differ... however, software is easier to generalize than hardware. The link I provided illustrates the effectiveness of various products and Norton is not high on the list. Further, the link below illustrates that Norton is a system hog in terms of resources. Unlike hardware which can fail seemingly randomly and some people may be more or less lucky with one brand over another, software is generally quantifiable.
Norton, for me, has been an ineffective pain... it works when it doesn't have to and fails miserably when you need it most. And then support won't help you unless you have a contract handy (My client DID have a contract through their parent company... but that didn't seem to matter to symantec). When the MSBlaster worm arrived years ago, I had a similar experience - McAfee caught it after a few hours, Symantec didn't catch it for two days. Didn't try McAfee on this issue, but again, they used symantec... and symantec failed miserably to detect what Dr. Web (and subsequent web sites) called an Rbot variant.
Now if you're never hit with a virus you may think Norton works great... but if you are, then TIME is VERY important. Symantec is slow in many cases. They have proven it time and again.
The only sport I care to follow is baseball - and Symantec Antivirus protection is a bit like a closer who can close out the everyday games... but put them in a critical situation and they blow it seemingly every time. (Armando Benitez).
Well, I ran the Symantec products on my servers, including Exchange, as well as clients for years, never a problem. Ran fine, updated fine, kept my network protected. The only reason I changed to Trend was due to corporate policy from across the pond, otherwise I'd still be running Symantec and would still be completely happy with it.
Done with this, thanks for reading.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
Done with this, thanks for reading.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
The poster formerly known as lander215
porkchopexpress
IS-IT--Management
We recently moved from Symantec corp to NOD32 and it seems to be a superior product, it's way more configurable and supports separate modules for document scanning, active scanning and IE monitoring you can configure how aggressive they all are to support older and newer clients. It's also much lighter than Symantecs products.
Compared Proactive Detection
When you are the IT director, it's your job to make sure the IT works. If it does work they know already and if it doesn't, they don't want to hear your pathetic excuses.
Compared Proactive Detection
When you are the IT director, it's your job to make sure the IT works. If it does work they know already and if it doesn't, they don't want to hear your pathetic excuses.
Designware
Technical User
- Sep 24, 2002
- 202
I agree with Davetoo, everyone has a horror story about any given product. I have a few clients running Symantec on their server and clients. I happen to like CA's ETrust. Doesn't seem to hog as many resources, and does a good job.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
