Antivirus for Win 2003

Topic

New Reply

Whats the recommended antivirus product for our Win 2003 server?

David

Reply | Quote

Replies

AV products are pretty much a matter of personal choice. Most everyone has a personal favorite and a horror story about the competition as the reason why they switched or will never use that product. Adding to the confusion, there are new AV products being released from other vendors of other top products in other areas that deserve consideration. What AV program are you using now and are you happy with it ???

Reply | Quote

We had been using Sophos, but found to our horror that it hasn’t been updaing itself for some months. We have someone coming in to reconfigure our whole network in a couple of weeks so were looking for a prduct with a 30-day trial that we could sort of load in a hurry to tide us over – with an intention to buy it thereafter I might add.

I’m familiar with Zone Alarms Suite, which I have privately installed on my own laptop workstation (being a suspicious, untrusting sort of guy) but they don’t appear to do a network version. Don’t know much about network AV programs except what we use must work automatically and be economic.

David

Reply | Quote

David

Might I suggest a different approach?

Since you already have Sophos installed, and it’s a perfectly decent product, why not manually download and install their latest monthly update, and then the cumulative-so-far-this-month collection of IDE files? If necessary, phone and involve the Sophos Technical Support help desk, probably the best of any AV manufacturer in the known universe. That will get you up-to-date.

Next step, more leisurely, is to find out WHY it hasn’t been updating (again involve Sophos technical Support?), to fix this, and put in place monitoring plans to ensure that if it happens again, you’re aware of it fairly rapidly.

John

Reply | Quote

My advice doesn’t come as a server guy, but a personal use one, but I echo Jefferson’s comments about Trend Micro. I’ve been using them for three years and it’s an excellent product(s). You should at least give it a go.

Reply | Quote

I don’t know (but I’m sure it’s been covered) if I missed a discussion here in the Lounge at some point… but I’ve been wondering which AV package has the least impact on system performance? I’ve been evaluating Trend’s software and I like it for the most part, aside from some user interface quirks and lack of configurable options.

NAV and McAfee both seem to slow Windows down considerably. I want to replace Norton in my next build with something light, fast, and effective.

Reply | Quote

Well I’m almost at the end of my third year with them, Mark, and I’ve no major complaints. Yeah, the GUI leaves a little to be desired but it’s been tolerable for me. Since I’ve ALSO used both Norton and McAfee and had similar complaints about CPU hogging, I’ve especially not got any gripe about PC-cillin. I don’t use their firewall since I’ve been satisfied with Sygate, but push come to shove, I guess I’d give their firewall a trial run.

The coincidence of your post is that I’m getting ready to post a question in the Software board about the product in the recent 4 or 5 days. Look for a post there from me sometime later today. In these three years there was only one “problem” that I remember being discussed somewhat here in The Lounge but to their credit, Trend Micro fixed it immediately. I’d recommend the product in clear conscience.

Reply | Quote

In PC-cillin through version 2005, the firewall did not have application control features, so it was better to use Sygate, ZoneAlarm or the pro version of Outpost for your firewall component for maximum protection. I haven’t upgraded to 2006 yet because… I still have 5 months left on my subscription for 2005.

Reply | Quote

> I’ve been wondering which AV package has the least impact on system performance?

Tough question. Sometimes reviews mention this, but I suspect it depends on how you use your computer and how you configure the software. For example, Trend Micro’s corporate product lets you choose between scanning all files, only certain file extensions, or based on the file’s header area (characterized as “true file type”). It also lets you say how deeply you want to scan for ZIP-in-a-ZIP and OLE-objects-in-OLE-objects. And you can turn on or off POP mail scanning. I’m sure that your experience will be somewhat different depending on these choices…

Other programs obviously have their own options. On our Office boards, for many years people have recommended not using the Norton add-in for Office, as its protection is redundant of the AutoProtect feature and slows down file access significantly.

Anyway, I’m not sure how one could design a test that was both fair and reflected the manner in which any one individual might use the software. And that’s why I’m not volunteering to coordinate a big show-down.

Reply | Quote

Indeed it is a tough one – and though I’m not one to test it myself, I would say the ideal method would be to take an existing “daily driver” machine and ghost it. Subsequently one could install various AV packages, restoring from the image between testing periods.

Norton and McAfee both pig resources even on the fastest machines, and I’m looking for a tight, clean alternative that is as out of the way as possible.

Reply | Quote

Slightly off topic:
I agree completely, you make some very good points. It certainly depends how one sets up the program; what it should scan and how. Nonetheless, I think everyone have experienced situations when a newly installed program had a negative impact on boot time, response time when working with files etc.

As to programs I don’t know how one could find this out before trying, but of course with more features, bells and whistles, there is likelihood that the program will have a negative impact on performance. Maybe system requirements will tell?

I do agree with Dave about F-prot Antivirus, I have been using their “F-Prot for DOS” for over 10 years, and they have a really good reputation. The Windows products have small system requirements. I think that Lyra somewhere else mentioned Nod32, I have not used that program but, the reviews mention the small footprint and thus low impact on performance. I don’t know. Then there are some things that can be said about other products but it will be in conflict with rule 11 …

At the moment I have AVG Free, but my ISP gives me F-Secure and maybe I will change.

ON TOPIC: I agree with John, since a product is installed, the first solution is not to jump to another program.

Reply | Quote

Most corporate products have migrated to cover both clients and servers, managed from a single console. We use OfficeScan Client/Server Edition (actually, the version contained in the Client/Server/Messaging Suite for SMB) from Trend Micro. It updates itself hourly or daily (or basically whatever you like). The latest version contains some kind of software firewall for the clients, but we haven’t tested that yet.

Added: If you don’t use Exchange, there is a less expensive product, Client Server Security for SMB.

Reply | Quote

John’s advice is sound. I have had the same problem with McAfee and Symantec products – that is, silent failures when it came to product updates. I’ve also had a long standing notion that both of these products are unnecessarily piggish with system resources.

As a network admin, make it a point to periodically revisit all critical software on user machines and servers. Due diligence is the solution to a problem like this, not changing vendors.

Reply | Quote

Check out F-Prot Antivirus Products & Services
I have gone to F-Prot after using Norton’s since the early DOS days. There are both Corporate and Home services.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote