Notes on SEP11: Its an aptly acronym'd disaster.
The management app is a Java app. It runs like crap, if its not crashing just because you are trying to log in. And I dont just mean some .exe is failing. The system service fails. The Network Threat Protection client component is like the Windows Firewall, but you have less control over it. It does not play nice with various types of network connections. This is by far the biggest piece of absolute f*ck*ng sh*t I have ever had the displeasure of using. There's lost more, but its really not worth it. On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 4:30 PM, David Mazzaccaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Cool. > > Thanks for the update! > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Alex Eckelberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:26 PM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > > > > > > VIPRE is actually done, it's shipping in current versions of CounterSpy. > But that incarnation is way too basic to be relied on as a full AV product. > The work over the past many months has been to increase the number of > detections, add support for file infecting and macro viruses, email viruses, > start lining up the certification, that kind of thing. > > > > It has been a very difficult (understatement) and very long task. But we'll > go into beta on the final product in January, and ship in March. > > > > Alex > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:44 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/evolving-antimalware-technology-model.html > > > > This blog is almost a year old (Jan 2007) and talks about VIPRE being > "basically done": > > > > "But now VIPRE is basically done. What needs to happen is to get certified > by the major certification bodies and to continue adding more viruses in > order to roll it up into a full antvirus product. However, a major part of > the VIPRE technology is actually shipping in CounterSpy 2.0, solely for the > purpose of making CounterSpy 2.0 a more powerful antispyware product. We've > taken the VIPRE "juice" and put it into CounterSpy, and I think you'll > really notice the difference when you're dealing with spyware." > > > > Maybe we'll see it Q1 2008? > > Unfortunately, my Symantec needs to be either renewed (or preferably > replaced) sooner than later. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bob Fronk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:36 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > > > It is called VIPRE. > > > > I hope it comes soon as well. I just purchased CounterSpy Enterprise and > VIPRE will be an inexpensive upgrade to that if my understanding is correct. > > > > > Bob Fronk > > > > > > > > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:30 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > > > I didn't even know they (Sunbelt) had an antivirus product coming out?!?! > > How did I miss that? Is there any ETA for it? > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:21 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > > > > Personally I want to see Sunbelts new AV solution get out the door. My > contract is up soon and I do not want to wait until it is to look at it. > That would just push me into a renewal not a fun place to be. Either that > or they take over Eset and do it right. I understand they use it in house > or did at some point. > > > > > > Jon > > > On Dec 21, 2007 11:14 AM, Jon Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Clients are all still at 2.7 I would have to look at the server to tell you > which one but suspect the version before the current one. > > > > > > Jon > > > On Dec 21, 2007 11:10 AM, David Mazzaccaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > What version of NOD32 are you (happily) running? > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Jon Harris [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:47 AM > > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > > > > > I'll add my $0.02 on this NOD32 yes the doc's blow but once it is up and > running it catches more than Symantec, has a much smaller foot print, and > just plain runs. I have it installed on a virtual server with only 512 MB > of RAM, upgraded to 640 MB this last week. As for Backups try UltraBac it > works and is nearly as old a product as BUE. I only wish Sunbelt did the > support on this product! It takes half a day before tech support responds. > Sunbelt rarely has anywhere close to that kind of delay. I must admit I > have had only 2 problems and both were human made. Sales Engineer told me > the tape unit we were looking at purchase of was in their list of supported > units, it was not. I did not listen to the Sales Engineer selling us the > tape unit and tried to cheap out the purchase and not get a dedictated SCSI > card for the unit. > > > > > > Jon > > > On Dec 21, 2007 10:11 AM, Don Ely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good Luck... Just because its cheaper doesn't make it better... And I > don't know about the expensive part, but then I may have more servers spread > across more locations... > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:53 AM, Roger Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > A couple issues driving this: > > Commvault's annual maintenance is way too expensive compared with other > products. However, their support has been great when we've needed it. > > One member of our staff has extensive BUE experience. None of our staff is > well-versed in CV. > > > Roger Wright > Network Administrator > Evatone, Inc. > 727.572.7076 x388 > ____ > > No one can feel as helpless as the owner of a sick goldfish. > > > From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:15 PM > > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > > Moving FROM CommVault to BUE??? Whose dumb decision was that? > > > On Dec 20, 2007 1:20 PM, Roger Wright <HYPERLINK > "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > I'm one of the few who likes ARCserve 11.5, but we are looking at moving > from Commvault to BUE soon. > Roger Wright > Network Administrator > Evatone, Inc. > 727.572.7076 x388 > ____ > Don't let the computer bugs bite! > > > > > From: Bob Fronk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:14 PM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > I have been unhappy with everything Symantec touches in the last few years. > I have already dropped they Symantec Mail Security for Ninja this week. > > > Going to move off the SAV client as soon as possible. > > After dumping EMC prior to ever installing, I also called off a Symantec > Evault purchase and bought Sunbelt Exchange Archive (installing after > vacation next week) > > > Investigating replacements for BackupEx. (Recommendations welcome……) > > > > > > Bob Fronk > > > > From: Michael Hoffman [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:07 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > 400Mb on the laptop for the AV only install. As most of our clients are SBS > users we waited till the SBS specific notes came out. We are running it > internally and I am seriously unhappy with it. Since the SBS specific > policies turn of the features the overhead is a lot less, but it still kills > the Web Usage Logging Service every few days causing ISA to crash and then > mail flow ceases. > > > I do like the facility to apply settings on a per user basis via AD, but > it's not going anywhere near a client this year. > > > Mike > > From: Damien Solodow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 December 2007 19:53 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > It's definitely more than 35mb, but no way it's a gig. > > From: Sam Cayze [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:51 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > > I just broke the news to my Dell/Symantec Rep that I will be ditching > SAV/SEP. > > I gave him all my points: > > Bloat > Performance > And all the Problems I hear of SEP > And all the perks I hear of NOD. > Need I say more? I could go on.... > > He argued with me a ton, as expected. He tried to convince me that the > install footprint for SEP 11 on a XP machine was around 35MB. Um... > Right. Now, I haven't installed it, but someone who had, tell me what > your footprint is... I am hearing it's around 1GB. (Program Files AND > COMMON FILES directory). > > > > > > > > _____ > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:43 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Symantec Endpoint Protection > Oh do I wish I could jump ship too, but I'm still stuck in a contract. The > current version we are running doesn't fare well against malware at all... > > > On Dec 20, 2007 2:39 PM, Bob Fronk < HYPERLINK > "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"HYPERLINK " mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Stop now. It is BUGGY. I put it on a server and two machines and > performance dropped substantially. Not to mention all the network > connectivity issues on the client workstations. > > > I am jumping the Symantec ship. I just bought CSE from Sunbelt and am > awaiting their AV product due out soon. In the mean time I am staying with > SAV 10.1.5.500 and hoping that Viper, vpre, whatever Sunbelt is calling it > is available SOON. > > > Bob Fronk > > > > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:HYPERLINK "HYPERLINK " > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" \n mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] " http://gmail.com/"; \ngmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:34 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: OT: Symantec Endpoint Protection > > OK, so the new version Symantec AntiVirus has been combines with some new > anti-malware features, and bundled into a new product called Symantec > Endpoint Protection. The version of this bundling built on Symantec > Antivirus versions, is now up to 11. > > So, I download all the ISOs from Symantec's Licensing Portal, and I go to > create a new folder structure in my "Installs" share... I typically go > with acronyms of long product names, so I go under the existing Symantec > folder, choose to create a new sub-folder, and start to type out: > > SEP11 > ... this does not give me a warm/fuzzy feeling about this product! > -- > ME2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for > the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not > read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed > in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the > Davis H. Elliot Company . Warning: Although precautions have been taken to > make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept > responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email > or attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ME2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for > the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not > read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed > in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the > Davis H. Elliot Company . Warning: Although precautions have been taken to > make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept > responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email > or attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for > the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not > read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed > in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the > Davis H. Elliot Company . Warning: Although precautions have been taken to > make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept > responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email > or attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ME2 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
