v10.0.2? (there is a significant difference in 10 vs the past versions)
From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> To: "The Hardware List" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0800 Yes it's the corporate edition -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE client v10.0.2? >From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> >To: "The Hardware List" <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus >Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800 > >Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV >vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from >what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild >regardless if its on the wild list or not. > >And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which >vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually >don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are >there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec >comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners >are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are >reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because >some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning >can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware >scanners. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM >To: The Hardware List >Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus > >Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the >other popular anti-spyware tools missed... > >That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at >anti-malware. > >So, care to qualify your statement? > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM >Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus > > > > Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM > > To: "The Hardware List"<[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus > > > > I can confirm. > > SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade > > > stuff > > that is Norton branded. > > 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I >don't > > consider very bad. > > > > I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it >just > > isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) > > > hate > > the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is > > related...but nothing could be further from the truth. > > > > Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective >malware > > scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. > > > > Greg > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM > > Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus > > > > > >> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) > >> takes > >> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much > >> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it >will > >> get > >> more false positives. > >> > >> > >>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> > >>>To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> > >>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus > >>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 > >>> > >>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: > >>>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection >accuracy. > >>> > >>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated > >>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I > >>>switched to Kaspersky. > >>> > >>>-- > >>>JW > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
