Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Viral Software Recommendations?

Kris_J asks: "My InoculateIT Personal Edition anti-virus scanner will no longer be updated from around mid-March. I've really enjoyed this package, particularly the price (it's free for personal use). The company is complaining that so many new ways are being found for virii/worms/trojans to spread that they can't afford to keep the personal edition updated. Whatever. Does anyone have a recommendation for either a particular anti-virus package/bundle, or a good place for trusted, independant, reviews of anti-virus software, or even products to avoid. (If Zonealarm Pro was bundled with an anti-virus option I'd just get that.)" For those of you who have to deal with operating systems where viruses are a problem, what software do you use to detect them and weed them out? How about software that will scan your entire network?

64 comments

  1. I don't use windows, but by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have heard ver nice things about GriSoft.

    1. Re:I don't use windows, but by phagstrom · · Score: 1
      From the license:

      If your country is not on the list, you are not allowed to use AVG 6.0
      Free Edition - you may download AVG Trial version instead.

      North, Middle and South America - all countries
      Europe - United Kingdom only
      Asia - all countries
      Africa - all countries
      Australia, New Zealand


      What's wrong with the rest of Europe using it, I wonder?
    2. Re:I don't use windows, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got to be some sort of EU import restriction, or a UK export restriction. (Ignoring non-EU Europe in the case of the former.)

    3. Re:I don't use windows, but by rm-r · · Score: 1

      Good question, the EU is pretty well harmonised with regard to the relevent laws, and even those countries outside the EU are in better position than some in Asia and Africa it would appear the "Axis of Evil" are allowed to use this software even!

      --

      J-aims
      --
      Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
    4. Re:I don't use windows, but by pmsr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could it be it uses imperial, not metric measures? Two pounds of UDP packets, one pound of icmp unreachable packets ... you get the idea.

      /Pedro

  2. AVGuard by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1, Redundant
    I use AVGuard because it's free. It caught something once, which may have been a false positive, and it is thorough. Otherwise, I don't worry about virii because I don't use m$ lookout!

    I also recommend iptables on a linux firewall. Never had a virus yet (knocking on wood).

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:AVGuard by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      I also recommend iptables on a linux firewall. Never had a virus yet (knocking on wood).

      How does iptables protect against Windows viruses? I could see a Perl script that filters incoming mail to remove VBScript, et al, but I fail to see how iptables can protect your Windows boxen from infectious code.

      That said, running an iptables based firewall is generally a good idea...

    2. Re:AVGuard by boopus · · Score: 2

      Because if the Windows machine is behind a NATing firwall, it isn't possible to access any services from the outside without specificaly configuring them.

      IE/Outlook viruses still have a fair chance of course.

    3. Re:AVGuard by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Using iptables means you know what's going on. Well, at least you have a better chance. That can be very helpful if you have Windows boxen behind your firewall. You never know when some builtin trojan crap from Redmond will attempt to suck something off the net that could be infected. That doesn't mean it can or will happen, but the less unknown net traffic going on, the better I say. Firewalls do work both ways fortunately.

      In other words, I don't fsck'n trust m$.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:AVGuard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You never know when some builtin trojan crap from Redmond will attempt to suck something off the net that could be infected"

      No and you won't with iptables either unless you set it to log all outgoing syn packets.

      iptables also will not save you from trojans. If you have a router/firewall between the net and your win boxen the trojan can simply connect out from the win boxen...the firewall would NAT/route these packets like any other web traffic. Very rarely do trojans attack windows boxes via direct tcp connections..usually they get in through IE/outlook exploit....

      Also any trojans that give remote control of the system could also work through iptables firewalls. They just have to open outgoing port connections and evil skript kiddie(tm) can connect back via the same port funnelling onto your LAN. This depends on how well you setup your iptables firewall though :) btw blocking all non-port 80 is not the way to do it...

      pkm

  3. Who needs anti-viral software? by rehannan · · Score: 1

    I've been running some form of Windows for a little over 5 years with nary a virus. Instead of going with a system-resource-hogging-anti-virus program, I'd stick with a good firewall (free) and a bit of saviness (not opening strange attachements, etc...).

    1. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by larien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, there have been cases where e.g. cover disks for magazines have been infected with virii, as well as some other disks. Even if you only open 'trusted' attachments, you can still get hit. Also, some viruses have been able to launch themselves despite not being explicitly opened in some cases.

    2. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid move...

      Firewall alone sucks... Firewall just regulates some aspects of tcp/ip traffic.
      Antivirus is the only way to prevent viral infection.

      To have a good security, the only way is to have fw+av+good user rights separations (don't work with an admin account, use a user account for everydays tasks) and naturally: PATCH YOUR SYSTEM ASAP WHEN A FIX IS RELEASED

      With nowadays worm and buggy programs (like IE, Outlook,...), your computer can get infected without opening any attachement.

    3. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by andylaurence · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I've had both. I thought I was quite clever when it came to avoiding virii. You can spot them a mile off in your inbox. One day I went to delete one, and it ran on its own accord. I now no longer use the preview pane, and suggest others refrain from using it too.

      Also, we scan every CD which comes in the door of this office, and have on occasion had cover CDs with virii. They're more popular than you'd think.

      A third point, you'd often not notice if you had a virus if it showed no external signs of being there. I've seen computers which were infested with virii, but the user was completely unaware as nothing had changed.

      Beware

    4. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by larien · · Score: 2
      Hehe, I remember when we eventually got our AV installations done when I worked at a university. 90% of the machines were infected (mostly with Ethan), some with 2 viruses!

      Of course, we were running in a fairly unregulated environment with internet access and floppies/zip drives/CD-Rs being rampant. Once we got the virus scanners in place, we managed to get a handle on it, but it shows how much you need anti-virus software in almost any organisation.

    5. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

      "You can spot them a mile off in your inbox. One day I went to delete one, and it ran on its own accord. I now no longer use the preview pane"

      they're only gonna run this way if you use an email program stupid enough to automatically run sripts when presented with them (see Outlook and Outlook Express). other programs (see Pegasus Mail) wouldn't go near a script on principle

    6. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

      and use an email program and web browser that don't enthustiasticly launch any JS or VB script they're sent. I use Pegasus Mail and Mozilla instead of the virus magnets Outlook/Outlook Express and Internet Explorer; that, and the previous posters saviness, makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE when it comes to virii

    7. Re:Who needs anti-viral software? by andylaurence · · Score: 1

      they're only gonna run this way if you use an email program stupid enough to automatically run sripts when presented with them (see Outlook and Outlook Express). other programs (see Pegasus Mail) wouldn't go near a script on principle

      I wholeheartedly agree, but when it's your office machine, and it's company standard....

  4. It definately has to be..... by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 0

    Norton Antivirus. Frequent updates, good intergration with windows (from 95 to XP) and easy to find from "alternative sources" ;)

    --
    Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  5. Somebody has to say it by Walles · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    If your current operating system vendor is unable to provide you with a hassle-free environment, maybe your company should be looking elsewhere for those services? Of course, switching operating system is not something you do in a jiffy, but considering the problems you seem to be having, have you at least evaluated the alternatives? What was the result?

    Cheers //Johan

    --
    Installed the Bubblemon yet?
  6. Norton Internet Security 2002 by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a great product. It includes Norton's AntiVirus product (much better than McAfee, in my experience), as well as their 'software' firewall product (based on AtGuard). It also can block web ads in your browser. Very nice product, lots of features, and well worth the price.

    1. Re:Norton Internet Security 2002 by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Based on my experience, Norton's Personal Firewall is really good at breaking network configurations and needing to be uninstalled to get things working.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:Norton Internet Security 2002 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to use Norton Antivirus but every time that I tried to install the ActiveState perl compiler Norton would keep prompting me saying that my system had a virus, so I could never get ActiveState installed. Both ActiveState and Norton know about this issue and ActiveState even talks about it in the readme included with their perl compiler. So...If you use perl on your Win32 box I would stay away from Norton...

    3. Re:Norton Internet Security 2002 by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

      Probably only a problem with the perl _compiler_ - if you just want to use ActiveState perl, that doesn't happen - I should now, cuz I have ActiveState perl on the same Win2k box I use NIS on, and I've never had a problem.

  7. AV solutions by ReluctantBadger · · Score: 2, Informative

    At work, we use Sophos for Windows 2000 and 98 workstations. Antigen for Exchange 2000 (which utilises McAfee & Sophos engines in our config, but there are more). Norton with wrapper for Mailsweeper. Personally, I use Sophos on my Win2k workstation. It is constantly updated, and the support from Sophos is great. Plus it's a UK company ;) so I'm biased!

    1. Re:AV solutions by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

      Antigen is GREAT. A lot of people haven't heard of it, but they should. It beats every other Exchange anti-virus tool, hands down.

      We had a lot of problems with GroupShield at work and just went to Antigen. So much better. Everywhere I've deployed GroupShield there has been problems. The general answer in their KB is REINSTALL! Which is not a good thing on a production mail server.

  8. I agree by Manic+Miner · · Score: 1

    Definately, I use this both at work and at home, very good product.

    The firewall allows you to configure rules based on applications, ports, local address, remote address, or any combination of the above. When you use a new product that tries to access the 'net you get a popup warning box which allows you to one-off block/allow or to configure a rule. Nortons "Live Update" allows you to stay easily up to date, and the firewall software automatically contains blocks for the most common trojan ports.

    The firewall also allows you to have "privacy" controls to prevent your browser accepting / returning cookies and off-site information, along with add blocking, very nice.

    The Anti-Virus seems pretty effective as well with the usualy quaranteen, dis-infect, delete options, and a nice auto-update facility.

    You can find nortons page here

    --
    If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
  9. If you're looking for free software... by latsabb · · Score: 1

    then Alwil Software supplies the Avast antivirus package: avast.com
    I haven't tried it and have no idea if it's any good, but it's free!

  10. I disagree...for what its worth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    firstly don't get me wrong...I would rather people use this than nothing. All the win2k boxen at my workplace have this installed and it bugs the living shit out of me.

    Every site I try and view I get about 20 windows popping up asking me about cookies/directx/nonport 80 and god knows what else. After the 30th message on the 3rd webpage I give up and click "block" blindely to everything.

    Now I disagree for this reason:

    my home boxen has no anti virus software. It has no IE. It has no Outlook Express. It needs no anti virus software. I spent 10 minutes setting up an iptables firewall and 10 minutes updating my browser every few weeks/months and that prevents me getting virii. The email client does not consider running vbs scripts embedded in emails a feature so is not at risk.

    So whats better..to have an OS that just doesn't really get virii and is very easy to protect? or to run a background process that constantly blocks every "feature" of your OS and has to ask your permission first. I know which annoys me more :)

  11. Mcafee or Panda by troels · · Score: 2, Informative

    Im personally using Mcafee, mainly because i have good experiences with it from work where we have it running both on all windows clients and linux file servers. And if you aren't behind a "real" firewall it does come with McAfee firewall included, which i haven't actually tried myself. I think there is a trial version but im not sure. And if you like all kinds of other crap^H^H^H^Hutilities then you can get it from McAfee as well.

    An alternative i have heard some good things about though is Panda antivirus. One of the good things is that you can get an evalution version so you can try it before shelling out the money.

    Another one i haven't seen mentioned on here, and that i actually own but havent tried (came with my motherboard) is PC-cillin. This one allows you to download an evaluation version as well.

    I could mention a few others, but they have already been mentioned by others... (Norton antivirus for instance)

  12. Norton is Aggravating by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 1

    I miss the days where you had a lightweight anti-virus scanner that ran only when you wanted it to, or at most scheduled itself to run overnight and that's it. I was a big fan of F-Protect software but it seems to be prohibitively expensive now.

    If there's one piece of software that can make your 2Ghz system perform like a Pentium 200 it's overly aggressive anti-virus software. It seems like Norton is the worst offender. It causes a noticable resource drain whenever you do anything with files. It's resident in memory all the time in various different places. It's hooked into the OS in so many different places that I worry if it will break when updates, hotfixes, etc are applied. I suppose it's great from a IT perspective where you have to assume your users are stupid, but I can't stand to deal with software like that at home.

    Not like I use windows that much these days at home, but I sure don't miss all those "treat your user like a moron" anti-virus packagages.

    1. Re:Norton is Aggravating by druxton · · Score: 1
      If there's one piece of software that can make your 2Ghz system perform like a Pentium 200 it's overly aggressive anti-virus software. ...but I sure don't miss all those "treat your user like a moron" anti-virus packagages.

      I use Norton AV software at home, and it, like the Command AV product I use at work, allows the user to configure how "aggressive" it is. Perhaps if you couldn't figure this out you shouldn't have left those packages so quickly...

  13. Pccillin by CheezyD · · Score: 0

    I've been using Pccillin for about 2 months now. There's a free one month trial, and it found a virus in an old email attachment I had laying around on my file server. It automatically prompts for updates (typically once or twice a week) and it suits my purposes.

    I believe most AV software can be configured to scan remote shares automagically (I know Norton 5.0 does).

    1. Re:Pccillin by mister+clark · · Score: 0

      I'll second that one.

      At work we used to run Norton Antivirus but when we switched from Novell to NT we decided to try McAfee. Boy was that ever a mistake. What a steaming pile of monkey dung their software is.

      Their supposed central management software is anything but. When it tried to push updates out to our Windows 98 machines half of them would crap out and we'd have to manually go to each station and remove the configuration and reinstall.

      When I spoke with their useless Tech Support people about this problem I asked how large corporations with separate offices handle this bug they said 'Oh those companies just train somebody at each location on how to clean out the config file'..huh? Central Management? Where?

      Then we installed it on our Windows Terminal Servers. They ground to a halt with McAfee.

      After talking with their most senior technicians for almost two months we gave up. I happened to come across Trend's site and installed their Server Protect product on one of our Terminal Servers. I didn't even have to do a reboot after the install. Nobody noticed it was installed. It works great and their support is top notch. They also included licenses for all of our staff to use PC-Cillin at home!!

      Go with Trend...you won't regret it!!

  14. the problem with windows based software by linuxbert · · Score: 1

    I dont like windows based anti-virus software because it often requires infected parts of the os to run. i have seen Norton not clean stuff up properly and out right miss things witht the latest definitions.

    Personally i use the free version of f-prot from f-secure
    it runs in any version of windows, is updated weekly, is free, and works.

    1. Re:the problem with windows based software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free f-secure (f-prot for dos) doesn't have realtime scanning so don't expect it to protect you. Realtime scanning is a must have if you want to keep your pc safe.

    2. Re:the problem with windows based software by pmsr · · Score: 1


      Free version of f-secure? Unless you still use Windows 3.1x, you are out of luck.

      /Pedro

  15. Re:Norton is Aggravating (most anti-virus are) by pmsr · · Score: 1

    Like the original poster, i too use InoculateIT in my personal machine, and have been warned at update time that in May Computer Associates will stop supporting the product. It is a very lightweight anti-virus, with a simple and effective interface (is it me or aren't there getting so cheesy these days), that doesn't get in the way of work, and doesn't try to be everything to everybody and the same time. And guess what, it is also free. Practical alternatives nowadays, even non-free ones, are little to none. So one of these days, in one of my intellectual honesty attacks, i hatched up something it may end up being a radical idea: if this is such a great product, why can't i just upgrade to the e-trust version they are offering now? It has the same charm as InoculateIT, and the price is a little less than $10 each year. I mean, we all love free software and all, but i spend almost that each time i go out with my wife and daughter and we want to sit down have a coffee or whatever. $10 for peace of mind? It is as much as free. So you may ask, why haven't i upgraded yet? Well ... i am waiting for May. That way i get a couple months extra on yearly updates. ;-)

    /Pedro

  16. I do use windows and by techstar25 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recommend Grisoft's AVG. It's doesn't seem to slow my XP at all. In comparison I installed Norton and my machine slowed to a crawl. It checks all email and can be intergrated into the shell making it very easy to scan files. I download sharware and other programs a lot so I need to scan them. You can download updates regularly also. I has so far found a couple infected files and let me delete them safely.

  17. Norton Antivirus by criticalrealist · · Score: 1
    Norton Antivirus, here,, has proven itself to me over and over. I've never used or administered a system that was affected by a virus that NAV didn't catch, unless I hadn't updated the virus definitions. One other trick that many miss, is that you need to keep your "symevent" files updated. You can get the updates from ftp.symantec.com.

    If you use Windows, you have to spend money to get some basic software products. One of these is a good antivirus utility. It sucks, but that's life for the Windows user.

    --
    I am not a lawyer.
  18. McAfee by spt · · Score: 1

    I have used the e500 email/http scanning appliance, ePolicy orchestrator management tool and NetShield NT.

    If you don't have the resources to manage all this yourself, there is a managed service called VirusScan asap.

    1. Re:McAfee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have just got rid of McAfee as we had so many problems with it causing crashes on are users machines ( about 1500 machines ) and not detecting viri.
      So we have just got Norton enterprise edition and server & client wise its great, I find the client even runs well on old p-166 with nt4 something McAfee never did.
      The central management of it is a dream once you have set it up well you only need to check on it occasionally.
      The enterprise edition also comes with firewall and exchange protection.
      Ged

  19. Take a tip from *nix systems by gruntvald · · Score: 1

    Keep your systems patched, especially office and the browser, and don't run in the administrators account. If the user base is likely to run executables that they download, list the executables that can be run in a policy. Problem solved. I have not seen a virus on my workstation farm in over 2 years, even when they are floating the rest of the company like crazy, and yet the workstations don't run NAV etc. 'cos it gets in the way of AutoCAD and SAMBA.

  20. Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by mini+me · · Score: 1

    If cost is not an issue, I would recommend Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition. It is totally managed from the server which makes it much easier to administer in a large (and even small) workplace. The server is setup to download the latest virus definitions on the schedule that you choose. The clients then update from the server.

    From what I've seen of it, once it is installled there isn't anything you have to touch after. It just does its thing.

    1. Re:Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by Llama+Keeper · · Score: 2

      Norton Corporate also works well in the stand alone mode as well. I send a copy home with all my Physicians at home. The licensing is pretty flexible and its quite cheap. I also like the fact that Norton Corporate can be set to check for update automagically. It is absolutly the best product for business applications or personal use.

      --


      Rule of Life Number 2: Remember, it can all go to hell at any minute. --Jimmy Buffet
    2. Re:Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by DFisherman · · Score: 1

      The only problem I've come across is that soemtimes when you use Outlook Express and a virus is found in an email, the entire mail database file for that email account is locked up (good but hamfisted) until the administator disables the AV on the machine with the virus (dangerous), the culprit email is deleted and then AV is restarted. With files (exe, com, doc, etc...) and Office Outlook it's fine though. It does suck up a lot of juice from lower end machines (P3-500 and under, terrible with our old low-end Celeron 433s). P3-600 and above run fine.

    3. Re:Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by Sabriel · · Score: 2
      Norton Corporate also works well in the stand alone mode as well. I send a copy home with all my Physicians at home.
      My school has NAV Corporate 7. The standalone version has no email support for anything that isn't Outlook (or Lotus, I think). "Hi, an email with a virus has arrived, I'll just lock your inbox file while the client is still trying to save other incoming emails to it". ARGH!

      NAV Personal 2002 however parses emails before they reach the client program; very nicely done. I wish Norton had included their Personal edition instead of the sucky standalone version of their Corporate edition.

    4. Re:Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

      You stole the words from my mouth. Symantec Corporate Edition is far and away the best anti-viral application on the market due to the following reasons:
      1) Relatively light on resources
      -server scans all transactions with little apparent performance hit, at least in my environment.
      -client performance is very fast
      2) It's completely different from the standard Norton sieve AV product for personal use
      -I've seen Norton Personal squashed by crappy little kit viruses, but Corporate Ed. has killed them all.
      3) Price is competitive for multi-license products of this nature
      4) Auto update. Everything's automatic, and so far, entirely reliable. I still double-check it.

    5. Re:Norton Antivirus Coperate Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, NAV 2002 does in/out email scanning via transparent proxy -- so no re-configuring your email client and it should work with virtually any email client out there.

  21. The best anti-viral software is now available by Benjiman+McFree · · Score: 1

    get the latestAntiVirus Software now!

  22. Re:Norton is Aggravating (most anti-virus are) by robbkidd · · Score: 1

    if this is such a great product, why can't i just upgrade to the e-trust version they are offering now? It has the same charm as InoculateIT, and the price is a little less than $10 each year.

    eTrust Antivirus ($19.95, $9.95 annual renewel) will give you what InoculateIT Personal Edition did. eTrust EZArmor ($49.95, $19.95 annual renewel) is a broader package providing the features of their Antivirus, Personal Firewall and Content Inspection offerings. I haven't worked with EZArmor, yet, but I've used Inoculan, InoculateIT and eTrust Antivirus, liked them all (and the improvements made over the years) and expect good things from Armor.

  23. I use McAfee by Eigenray · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unfortunately, I can't tell you what I think of it.
    Uh oh, by telling you I use it you might assume that I think it's great, so let me tell you right now that may or may not be the case.

  24. False Alarms by Detritus · · Score: 2

    I've had annoying problems with McAfee "finding" viruses in files that contain digitized data from scientific experiments. Plus, it seems to be somewhat buggy, crashing when it gets confused.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  25. Norton Internet Security by swinerd · · Score: 1

    The antivirus saved me quite a few times, but the firewall is not so great (lacks configuration).

    But I had a lot of problems: I had troubles registering, their shop really sucks and I had to download different version of their registering software, after lots of mails with their support center. It took me a month to have a working version!! And a few days ago my subscription was over, well before the year I bought... but their support service wrote me that it was their fault and they will update my subscription period in a few days.

    So: buy just the antivirus, it's great and doesn't bog your pc, but don't buy it online!

  26. Re:Norton is Aggravating (most anti-virus are) by pmsr · · Score: 1


    Yes, but the upgrade cost for current InoculateIT Personal Edition users is just $9.95 yearly.

    /Pedro

  27. You *need* a server side virus scanner by Nailer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scanning for and removing mail viruses should be handled by your mail gateway (as well as your desktops for the following reasons).
    1) This way viruses are removed from your network at first opportunity
    2) You can bounce messages and let the sender / recipient / admin know the sender has a potential virus problem
    3) One server is easier to maintain than a few hundred desktops
    3) 2 layers provide more protection than one
    4) Why waste resources getting virus laden enail to desktops? A mail gateway provides a convenient choke point to get this stuff out of your network ASAP.

    With that in mind here's a guide I wrote for my employer for doing so at clients, using Red Hat Linux, Postfix, and Sophos MailMonitor.

    In the setup outlined below,
    1) Postfix accepts incoming mails on port 25 and leads them to a content_filter.
    2) The content_filter is Sophos MailMonitor, which takes over the mails on port 10025. After the mails have been scanned, they are placed back to postfix on port 10026.
    3) Finally postfix delivers the mails.

    Anyway, you should be able to read the guide at my rather unfinished website in a short while. If it isn't there yet, it will be soon.

    1. Re:You *need* a server side virus scanner by andylaurence · · Score: 1

      But what about other ways for virii to enter the network? Not everything comes in via POP/SMTP. For example, downloading from the Internet, CDs which come in from home with dodgy MP3 software on them...

      I certainly wouldn't roll out a machine to the network here without some form of AV software. As it is, we're currently evaluating alternative for InnocuLAN (network version of Innoculate IT) as it seems to be getting less and less effective.

    2. Re:You *need* a server side virus scanner by Nailer · · Score: 2

      Me>> Scanning for and removing mail viruses should be handled by your mail gateway (as well as your desktops for the following reasons).

      But what about other ways for virii to enter the network? Not everything comes in via POP/SMTP.

      Yes. That's why I just said that :).

  28. Corporate-oriented Virus scanning by Bravo_Two_Zero · · Score: 1

    You might be looking more toward the at-home, small-shop virus scanning, so my comments might not apply, but here they are anyway :)

    We use Trend Micro end-to-end. Officescan goes on the clients (Win95, 98, 2000, NT). ServerProtect goes on the servers (scan in+out or just one or the other). Scanmail runs on our Exchange servers. VirusWall will eventually go behind our firewall, particularly since they are a Cicso parter, and therefore allow only certain traffic to be filtered to the virus scanner inline. That's a big deal since your inline scanner can easily become a huge chokepoint (like McAfee... Network Associates is pretty clueless in this area).

    A better option on the desktop would be PC-Cillin. Officescan works great, but the new patern files and engine updates are in the 4 MB area, which is pretty slow to move to our 40+ remote offices over the average and already stressed frame relay connections (256k in many cases). Officescan uses a centralized server to push the updates and record scan results, and it can really slow down a network at the worst time (during virus proliferation... McAfee is not clueless here since they only ship the update portion to their clients). PC-Cillin pulls just the new part of the pattern file, so it's more like 200k on average.

    ServerProtect also runs from a central server (all of the consoles are web-based, requiring java). The update and reporting actions are similar, but it's not as big a hassle since bandwidth to them is not a problem. Scanmail updates directly from the internet, has options to scan smtp, mapi or both as well as block attachments by type.

    Performance-wise, we're pretty happy with them. Scanmail adds the most overhead, but it is well worth the effort. We also had an unresolved issue with backup software (Veritas BackupExec) running amuck on one particular system during the nightly ServerProtect scan, but we think it was related to the install of that particular machine. Reporting could be a bit less cumbersome, but it's still useful.

    Our solution wasn't cheap for a network our size, but all the players charge pretty much the same thing. Trend did miss Nimda until the second day after all the trouble, but Symantec and McAfee miss lots of other virii too (not to hear them tell it, but I'll attest to it), so you're in pretty much the same boat either way.

    --


    Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.

  29. Gateway vs Personal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At my employer, I've been using/evaluating for a month now RAV Antivirus for Postfix added by a fine collection of regexp for body_checks and header_checks (preventing that almost anything that MSWIN can execute passes the mail server) and I am VERY satisfied. This way the most common infection "procedure" is prevented.

    Of course, all of you can say that is NOT an infalible procedure... but what the hell, none is ! Having dozens of desktops with anti-virus is not infalible also. Sure there are some very fine packages but if you co-ordenate your traffic in a good combination of redirectors for SQUID, disabling file-tranfers through messengers and having your gateway pretty much tied up, I believe that you can have some relaxation time!

    • STATS :
    • 5Gb net traffic (mail+web) per day
    • 3 virus caught in 27 days
    • 0 infections
    Hope advises helped !
  30. LINKS #dmsetup give from time to time by DRACO- · · Score: 1

    I work with a virus removal group on the undernet that works from the channel #dmsetup. We often locate new stuff all the time. Below Im pasting all my links I usually give out to users. Included are keepers of the gates of hell (stuff you use before you get infected.) and some stuff that gets out out of hell (what you use after your girlfriend opened that attachment)

    Cleaners and virus scanner suites

    Housecall online antivirus scanner
    PC-Cillin virus scanner suite
    Central command Virus Scanner Suite
    Puppet's Cleaner
    Puppet's Cleaner Alternate Site
    Mcafee virus removal suite
    Norton Antivirus, virus removal suite
    Frisk software's f-prot antivirus suite for windows dos and linux

    Firewall software

    Zone Alarm Firewall
    Conseal Firewall

    Various tools used to get out of hell or figure out what hell you are in.

    Boot disk images
    Dmsetup.org
    Common port usage/abuses

    --
    Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
  31. Re:Norton is Aggravating (most anti-virus are) by Kris_J · · Score: 2
    Thanks everyone. In the end I paid US$9.95 and "upgraded" to the commerical replacement.

    BTW: I like Sophos too, but a personal licence is around A$295.