On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Michael Leone <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We use Kaspersky for our AV needs, and to be honest, it's worked out >> well for us. It's certainly caught things that McAfee, our previous AV >> solution, didn't. However, they have this slight problem with being a >> covert arm of the Russian government, apparently .. > > Citation needed. I have not seen anything that supports the idea that > Kaspersky is an arm of the Russian government.
Tell that to the US government .. LOL >> So we need to drop them, as the federal agencies are doing. > > Is this a requirement by law/regulation for your departement? If not, > don't drop them, at least not for the reason stated above. My boss says it's not meeting our needs, and it will be replaced, so the requirement is for me to obey orders and keep my job. LOL Listen, I'm happy with Kaspersky, and I would recommend keeping it. But I have an idea that this is a mandate from farther high up. Especially seeing as to how we are a state agency, I guess my CIO doesn't want to spend time explaining to our board of commissioners why the feds are wrong, and we're keeping Kaspersky when they aren't ... > We have Eset, and I'd drop them in a heartbeat, if I could. Not > because it's a bad product of its kind - far from it. It's been fairly > good. > > Instead, I'd go with Applocker, and removing admin privileges - we > already do patching fairly well. The order was for AV, since we need to do local workstations and remote devices. So we will. Also, no one here (including me) knows Applocker, and there's not a lot of support here, besides me, for anything OS or AD related ..
