McAfee vs Symantec corporate

[tk421]

I have a question for anyone who has used both McAfee ASaP and Symantec antivirus corporate edition. i have a client who uses SAV, and is considering going with McAfee's ASaP solution. The argument is that the McAfee product will require less maintenance, as all updates and scans and alerts are monitored by Mcafee's central web engine.

What do you think? I can't really make a judgement, because I haven't used the mcafee before.

[CeeBee]

SAV has a "central" engine which monitors all clients and updates their virus definitions too... Plus what I like is the fact that they release daily updates that I automatically download via FTP through a little program that I made so the database is up-to-date within a couple of hours (vs."Live Update" for which definitions are being released once a week). Haven't seen any virus going into my network yet.

[shamus]

I'll stick with AVG

free I-Worm/Swen remover also...

[tk421]

CeeBee,
That was along the lines of my concern, is that the McAfee product didn't have a central engine. I update using liveupdate on the server, and my clients grab the updates from the server. I don't use anything sophisticated like my own ftp prog like you do, so i don't imagine there would be any difference in my definition updating frequency between mcafee and sav. (though i would save bandwidth with the sav method.)

on a side note, i have been frustrated and concerned with sav since i have used it, because with the exchange scan engine, i frequently get notifications of a "scan engine failure" or an "unscannable attachment". SAV seems to get tired or beat up, and this worries me. have you encountered these kinds of errors?

[CeeBee]

Absolutely no problem with the clients. As far as it concerns the mail server we have Lotus Domino and I haven't seen any problem with NAV since I first installed it (3 years). Plus you don't really need your own ftp program, you can manually download the new defs into the server if you feel like, still it's better than once a week.

[slgrieb]

Check out http://www.virusbtn.com for more info about all things virus related. Particularly useful are the VB100 Award archives. You can check the performance of almost every antivirus program on the market in different OS over more than two years.

I really like NAV Corporate for its central management features. An administrator can handle all updates from a cetral location. Also, no matter what unsubstantiated performance claims some may make, there is nothing more effective.

[tk421]

thanks a lot, those are good resources.

sorry, i have another general AV question. for organizations hosting their own internal email server (exchange), would you consider it essential to have an AV plug-in for Exchange? or is a client-side AV sufficient? (talking about a 20-30 user environment.)

[Kymera]

Speaking from experience, I would get the AV for Exchange Server. We had an issue with the client side scanning of attachments. It increased the time to open attachments by 300% at least, we had to disable client-side scanning so things could return to normal. You may not have this issue if the environment is contiguous, meaning that the Exchange server is housed in the same location as the users. If you eventually add remote users you may have to address this problem anyway.

[CeeBee]

Definitely scan at server level. It won't be long until an infected message gets to a client PC that for some reason hasn't updated the defs.

[a3w275]

On the console for SAVMSE, try going to configuration, general settings and increase your maximum scan time and maximum archive scan depth. I had the same problem and worked it out with their support. I have worked with both NAI & Symantec and far prefer Symantec's product.

[Sp0cK]

I would got with Norton if those were your only choices. But I would also like for you to consider Panda Antivirus. It upates it self in hour increments so your virus list grows literaly by the hour. Also it has a 100% catch rate and does a great job of catching unknown viri.

Hourly Updates:
For example.. Panda 7.0 can scan 67323 total viruses, and 3 hours later, it could be 67330 (grew by 7, sorry for the hard math). It uses litterly no bandwitdh. There is a home version as well as an Enterprise Edition, very powerful virus scanner, alittle better than nortons and so far from my tests the best.

And you wont even need to get a FTP program to get those daily updates, you will already have hourly ones and or daily.

To give you an idea of the bandwidth needed to updated PANDA, using a standard 56K modem, panda 7.0 that is 6+ months old will be fully updated in 30seconds to 1.5 minutes. Norton/McAfee will take 15-60 minutes.

www.pandasoftware.com Take a look

[Diver01]

I would got with Norton if those were your only choices. But I would also like for you to consider Panda Antivirus. It upates it self in hour increments so your virus list grows literaly by the hour. Also it has a 100% catch rate and does a great job of catching unknown viri.

Hourly Updates:
For example.. Panda 7.0 can scan 67323 total viruses, and 3 hours later, it could be 67330 (grew by 7, sorry for the hard math). It uses litterly no bandwitdh. There is a home version as well as an Enterprise Edition, very powerful virus scanner, alittle better than nortons and so far from my tests the best.

And you wont even need to get a FTP program to get those daily updates, you will already have hourly ones and or daily.

To give you an idea of the bandwidth needed to updated PANDA, using a standard 56K modem, panda 7.0 that is 6+ months old will be fully updated in 30seconds to 1.5 minutes. Norton/McAfee will take 15-60 minutes.

www.pandasoftware.com Take a look

I use Pandasoftware online scan all the time. It is a great product. The only reason I dont buy the home version is im a cheap bastard and I like Grisoft cause its free..

[tk421]

I must admit I have never even heard about Grisoft, and I've barely heard about Panda. And since mcafee has long since pissed me off, and norton is really starting to get on my last nerve with their latest batch of products, i'm about primed to go shopping for alternatives.

thanks for the feedback on SAV. It really helps to get a sense of what other pros are using.

[Sp0cK]

I must admit I have never even heard about Grisoft, and I've barely heard about Panda. And since mcafee has long since pissed me off, and norton is really starting to get on my last nerve with their latest batch of products, i'm about primed to go shopping for alternatives.

thanks for the feedback on SAV. It really helps to get a sense of what other pros are using.

Hey, not a problem, that's why you asked this question was for help. Panda isn't a new program, just new to the USA, they are located in Spain. I like this scanner for many reasons, hey... it even talks.... goto www.pricewatch.com and goto the software section and get the home version for 12-22$ I think, norton and mcafee are there also for cheaper than 5-15$... Test panda and see what you think you have nothing to lose... let me know what you think if you do.... www.pandasoftware.com


JCC

[jmani]

I would got with Norton if those were your only choices. But I would also like for you to consider Panda Antivirus. It upates it self in hour increments so your virus list grows literaly by the hour. Also it has a 100% catch rate and does a great job of catching unknown viri.

Hourly Updates:
For example.. Panda 7.0 can scan 67323 total viruses, and 3 hours later, it could be 67330 (grew by 7, sorry for the hard math). It uses litterly no bandwitdh. There is a home version as well as an Enterprise Edition, very powerful virus scanner, alittle better than nortons and so far from my tests the best.

And you wont even need to get a FTP program to get those daily updates, you will already have hourly ones and or daily.

To give you an idea of the bandwidth needed to updated PANDA, using a standard 56K modem, panda 7.0 that is 6+ months old will be fully updated in 30seconds to 1.5 minutes. Norton/McAfee will take 15-60 minutes.

www.pandasoftware.com Take a look

I boycot Panda for firing a friend for disagreeing with a managers recomendation.