We use the most up to date av products -----Original Message----- From: "Hayes Elkins"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 3/3/06 9:04:12 PM To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]> Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
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 > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
