Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LIST.UVM.EDU
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - SCHOOL-IT Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

SCHOOL-IT Archives

School Information Technology Discussion

SCHOOL-IT@LIST.UVM.EDU

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
SCHOOL-IT Home SCHOOL-IT Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date:
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:46:56 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: alternative to Norton antivirus
From:
Vince Rossano <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
This thread may be a bit stale, but I resurrected it due to reports
regarding the WMF issue.  The organization A-V Test ran a test yesterday
on various A/V products to see how they fared against WMF exploits. 
I've included the results below.    F-Prot, among others, did poorly. 
But that was yesterday; by today they may have gotten up to speed too.

We use Symantec A/V, Enterprise Ed. (v. 8.1) here in Montpelier.  We
are generally pleased with its effectiveness and management features,
but I won't argue that there aren't more cost-effective solutions out
there.  Neither will I argue that Symantec doesn't put a dent in
resources, but, in our case, the dent hasn't been significant enough to
be concerned with.  I guess we are lucky to have fairly recent equipment
in our crucial locations that can take the hit in stride.

I will mention though that we have had huge performance problems with
PC's that were not successfully updated to the 8.x A/V engine.  Some
machines slipped through the cracks during the upgrade and retained the
7.x version. Those machines were slowed to a crawl by the updated
definitions (I guess).  Whatever the actual cause, updating the engine
fixed the problem immediately.

Vince


=============================================================
Test results

AV-Test took a range of antivirus products and ran 206 malicious files
that exploit the unpatched WMF flaw through them. Some of the products
have holes, it turned out.  These products detected all the malicious
files:

    * BitDefender
    * Computer Associates eTrust-VET
    * F-Secure
    * Kaspersky Lab
    * McAfee
    * Eset Nod32
    * Microsoft OneCare
    * Sophos
    * Symantec

These missed just one file:

    * Alwil Avast
    * Clam AntiVirus
    * Aladdin eSafe

These tools missed a number of samples (total in parentheses):

    * Fortinet (18)
    * AntiVir (24)
    * eTrust-INO (25)
    * Panda (25)
    * Ikarus (26)
    * Norman (26)
    * Ewido (47)
    * AVG (59)
    * VirusBuster (61)
    * QuickHeal (63)
    * Trend Micro (63)
    * Dr Web (93)
    * VBA32 (110)
    * Authentium Command (119)
    * F-Prot (119)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LIST.UVM.EDU CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV