NOD32 on Linux

2011-01-23 Thread kellyremo
Anyone using it?

http://beta.eset.com/linux

What are the experiences? Does it slows down the pc? Do we need it?



Re: NOD32 on Linux

2011-01-23 Thread Gilbert Sullivan

On 01/23/2011 05:57 AM, kellyremo wrote:

Anyone using it?

http://beta.eset.com/linux

What are the experiences? Does it slows down the pc? Do we need it?



Disclaimer: My experience with NOD32 is all on the Windows side, and it 
ended around two years ago. The sad story below is only my own story, 
but I can honestly testify that it wasn't an unusual one among corporate 
NOD32 users at one point in time. I very much hope that ESET has put 
that part of its history well behind it by now.


I can tell you that version 2.7 (2.732, if memory serves) was a light, 
effective anti-malware solution for Windows. It was the only such 
software that I ever found that I could run on the heavily laden Windows 
application and file servers at work without causing severe performance 
issues. (Symantec AV and others I tested even caused spontaneous 
rebooting of some types of servers which were, admittedly, running 
horrendously bad software.)


Then ESET improved NOD32 -- first with version 3, and then with 
version 4. Both versions (I imagine much earlier builds than the one you 
are considering) were a gigantic step backward, as far as my servers and 
I were concerned. These versions were beset with ridiculous bugs and 
caused huge performance penalties (not as bad as SAV or McAfee, but 
still...). I felt that ESET were essentially marketing software in its 
alpha (no, not even beta) stage of development.


I stuck with version 2.7xx for a couple of years, but come budget time 
one day we decided to ditch it, since ESET would NOT guarantee continued 
support for the old version for any specified length of time.


Versions 3 and 4 of NOD32 were total rewrites of the software from 2.732 
and constituted a complete change in the way the software examined 
processes in memory. And by the time I finished configuring all of the 
special file system locations their support people told me to exempt 
from scanning, I might as well not have been running the software at 
all. Even after extreme special configuration effort versions 3 and 4 
were still causing performance bottlenecks due to myriad file handles 
issues on the servers. Workstations running version 4 were okay, but not 
as happy as they had been with the 2.7xx version.


Furthermore, the way the user interface was implemented on these later 
versions showed either ignorance of, or a disregard for, the way 
security works (such as it is) for Windows user accounts (XP, Vista).


NOD32 used to be light and iron-stove reliable. The last I saw of it -- 
which I admit was quite a while ago -- the new versions were anything but.


And their user support model was ludicrous -- a user forum, with 
moderators from their support group -- was about all that was available 
from the central part of the company. Unfortunately, the VAR I used 
wasn't any better, and was harder to reach.


What started out for me as a few years (3, I think) of extraordinarily 
good experiences with ESET, turned into one of the bigger 
disappointments I've had with a software company in almost 40 years of 
computing experience.


I hope, for their and their customers' sakes, I was just seeing them in 
the throes of corporate expansion difficulties. But it really wasn't 
looking good. They were one of the more important of several major 
reasons (besides Windows itself) why I finally threw up my hands in 
horror and walked away from Windows.


Whether or not you need something like NOD32 -- or any anti-virus / 
anti-malware at all -- under GNU/Linux would depend largely upon the use 
of the system, particularly with respect to whether or not it has to 
handle a lot of mail / files / network traffic for Windows systems. I 
couldn't be much help in assessing that since I'm not troubling myself 
with Windows very much these days. I limit myself to not allowing my few 
Windows users to transfer executables or image files onto Windows 
systems from anywhere other than a vetted source, and totally 
prohibiting Internet contact of any kind for Windows production systems, 
with the exception of plain text e-mail. That's not a practical approach 
for many companies, but it happens to work beautifully for this place.


Anti-virus probably isn't usually very high as a priority for most 
GNU/Linux systems, except in certain cases, though there are certainly 
other precautions that a prudent user of such a system should use.


Good luck!

Regards,
Gilbert


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3c4f6a.5010...@comcast.net



[OT] AV engines (was: NOD32 on Linux)

2011-01-23 Thread Camaleón
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:57:07 -0800, kellyremo wrote:

 Anyone using it?

Not in linux, but from time to time I run online tests on windows 
machines and use Eset's scanning service. I find it reasonably good.
 
 http://beta.eset.com/linux
 
 What are the experiences? Does it slows down the pc? Do we need it?

I generally don't like how current AV are engined, neither in windows nor 
linux. Most of them still base their core detection on static firm files 
and todays threats are a bit more complicated and hard to detect.

AVs (now called Security Suites) under windows environments tend to 
slow down the whole system a lot and on linux I only use ClamAV for 
scanning some samba specific shared files and within Postfix e-amil 
server (for scanning user's e-mails). Still, I recommend its use for 
windows home users.

My every-day Debian systems do not have any anti-threat software 
installed.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.01.23.19.33...@gmail.com