Mike,
No ideas on f-prot, but just something we
do:
We use a combination of 2 virusscanners, McAfee
(updated automatically with dailydat every day, automatic install of extra.dat
emergency dats possible from version 7 and up) and Kaspersky, which I
update every hour. Using this combo, we blocked all non-zip netsky viruses
because of the restricted attachments list we use, and about 50 netsky zipped
viruses slipped through because of the time between discovery and fix. This
resulted in 3 actual infected networks which we had to
clean.
Groet, (regards)
------------------------------------------
ing. Michiel Prins bsc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SOS Small Office
Solutions / Reject / ****
Wannepad 27 -
1066 HW - Amsterdam
t.+31(0)20-4082627 -
f.+31-(0)20-4082628
------------------------------------------
Consultancy -
Installation - Maintenance
Network Security
- Internet - E-mail
Software Development -
Project Management
------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike VandeBerg
Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2004 15:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sniffer] F-Prot and netsky
I was wondering if
anyone else is using F-prot for their virus engine in declude, and what they now
think about it. Netsky was discovered on the 18th, and F-Prot actually had it
posted on their website as being discovered by them on the 19th. But they didn't
update their definition files to actually catch it until early this morning.
This meant that netsky ran rampant under F-Prots nose for 6 days. I feel this is
completely unacceptable, and I am going to change my virus engine this week
unless someone can tell me that there is a good reason why I shouldn't.
Any ideas or
feedback from someone using F-Prot?
Thanks
Mike VandeBerg
Network Administrator
NTS Services Corp
309-353-5632 ext. 227
Mobile 309-241-8973
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This message has been scanned for spam and viruses by Reject
