I can understand FP's against lesser used applications, but when part of Windows or a commonly installed MS product is tagged, there's no real excuse for that IMHO.
Still, I've asked Alex to provide any comparison data he can come up with, and to the extent the evidence is unbiased and convincing, I may put forth Vipre as an alternative. Thanks everybody for all the feedback. Carl From: David Lum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:23 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: Vipre effectiveness & false positives As I have stated in previous AV threads, I actually use/manage 3 different AV products: Vipre Enterprise (3 clients, ~25 systems, plus my home machines), Trend WorryFree (1 client, 55 systems) and McAfee (%dayjob%, ~500 systems) and Vipre easily has more false positives than the other two: 3 in the last 12 months, vs zero for Trend and McAfee. Twice it ate Outlook.exe, one other time it ate Iexplore.exe. Not enough to make we want to switch from Vipre, just offering a data point. A bit over a year ago Vipre replaced Trend at home (1 server, 3PC's), Symantec at a client of 17, and standalone McAfee at a client of 7, no major issues transitioning any of them. There were enough teething pains (FP's) early on to prevent me from replacing it at the bigger client as well as %dayjob%. I avoided the recent McAfee fiasco because I grab updates ~20 hours after they typcically release, didn't know Trend had one recently. Alternately, none of these sites have had infections requiring a HDD wipe. Dave _____ From: Ralph Smith <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:49 PM To: NT System Admin Issues <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness & false positives I don't disagree, but when you are presented with information you have to evaluate the validity of the data, and hopefully get clarification from those involved when it implies that there may be a problem. Virus Bulletin actually warned in the explanation of the chart that it was just one result and that conclusions shouldn't be jumped to until there was more data. And sometimes, a horse is just a horse, of course. _____ From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:39 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness & false positives My point was really that all AV vendors have experience FPs, not just Vipre. I agree that statistics can be a valuable tool, it's just that which ones you choose and how you present them can be misleading. For example, in a horse race between the US and Russia, the US horse won. In the American papers, it was reported that the US was took first place. In the Russian papers, it was reported that the US was next to last and that Russia was second place. The statistics reported in both cases were true, but the picture they gave of the race was very different. From: Ralph Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness & false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. _____ From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness & false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: "there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" From: Ralph Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness & false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) _____ From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness & false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV & SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman <[email protected]> wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for "Sunbelt". Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ****************** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. Confidentiality Notice: ****************** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. Confidentiality Notice: ****************** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
