Free AV for Win2003

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjm
  • Start date Start date
C

cjm

I'm after a free (or v.cheap) AV scanner for my home Win2003 box. I use
Avast elsewhere and I'm very happy with it, but it doesnt run on server OSs.

I dont need any server-specific feature, just some thing to provide basic
on-access scanning for when we're working on the server.

I've got ClamWin as backup but it's not an on-access scanner.

Any suggestions?
 
From: "cjm" <[email protected]>

| I'm after a free (or v.cheap) AV scanner for my home Win2003 box. I use
| Avast elsewhere and I'm very happy with it, but it doesnt run on server OSs.
|
| I dont need any server-specific feature, just some thing to provide basic
| on-access scanning for when we're working on the server.
|
| I've got ClamWin as backup but it's not an on-access scanner.
|
| Any suggestions?
|
| --
| (e-mail address removed)
| [remove the obvious bits]
|

If you are running Win2003 Server than you won't find FREE AV software. Servers are not
workstations. Go BUY an a corp/enterprise version of software for the server.
 
David H. Lipman said:
If you are running Win2003 Server than you won't find FREE AV software.
Servers are not
workstations. Go BUY an a corp/enterprise version of software for the
server.
Click to expand...

Servers are not workstations? How astute.

I would BUY a copy of a suitable product, if it was similar in price and
features to the desktop equivalents. I can't afford to pay £200 for a 5-user
server AV product, and I haven't found anything simpler/cheaper. I only want
to protect the server in the same way as your average retail AV app protects
a desktop...

I'm not a corporation. This is for my home server; it's barely even a
server - it's main use is to provide me with a Server SQL/IIS6 development
environment, which I use to support to small charities and for my own
learning. So I can't afford to pay for the enterprise-strength products.

So if anyone else knows of any free or cheap AV packages that will run on a
server, let me know...

Chris
 
I have also been looking for an affordable desktop-like AntiVirus solution
for the server editions of Windows with no luck. The best affordable
alternative I have come up with is to map the server drives on my desktop
and use the on-demand/scheduled scan capability. Luckily, my AntiVirus
software seems to scan the network drives, although much more slowly. I have
to live without the Online/RT scanning capability. I rationalize I can get
away with this since I am also using it as a development server and don't
really download and run stuff on this machine. I figure the only way a virus
is going to try and infect this box is through my desktop anyway, which is
protected.
 
I have also been looking for an affordable desktop-like AntiVirus
solution for the server editions of Windows with no luck. The best
affordable alternative I have come up with is to map the server drives
on my desktop and use the on-demand/scheduled scan capability.
Luckily, my AntiVirus software seems to scan the network drives,
although much more slowly. I have to live without the Online/RT
scanning capability. I rationalize I can get away with this since I am
also using it as a development server and don't really download and
run stuff on this machine. I figure the only way a virus is going to
try and infect this box is through my desktop anyway, which is
protected.
Click to expand...

Well why does it have to be a server? You can run SQL Server and IIS 6 on
the Win 2k pro or XP Pro workstation versions and you can find an AV
solution free or not free that will run on those versions of the O/S(s).

If you're hanging on the Win 2k3 O/S, then you'll have to pay for a
server version AV that will run on Win 2k3.

Duane :)
 
From: "Duane Arnold" <[email protected]>


| Well why does it have to be a server? You can run SQL Server and IIS 6 on
| the Win 2k pro or XP Pro workstation versions and you can find an AV
| solution free or not free that will run on those versions of the O/S(s).
|
| If you're hanging on the Win 2k3 O/S, then you'll have to pay for a
| server version AV that will run on Win 2k3.
|
| Duane :)
|

Duane:

Aren't you then limited to no more than 10 concurrent connections ?
That's the max. connections in Win2K and WinXP
 
Aren't you then limited to no more than 10 concurrent connections ?
That's the max. connections in Win2K and WinXP
Click to expand...

Just how big do you imagine his home network is?


Jim.
 
I'm after a free (or v.cheap) AV scanner for my home Win2003 box. I use
Avast elsewhere and I'm very happy with it, but it doesnt run on server OSs.

I dont need any server-specific feature, just some thing to provide basic
on-access scanning for when we're working on the server.

I've got ClamWin as backup but it's not an on-access scanner.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I went thru this drill a few months ago when my McAfee subscription
expired and the new version wouldn't load on my home network's domain
controller (win2K advanced server). I downloaded eval copies from
several manufacturers' websites and tried them until I found one I was
happy with. I finally went with the Bitdefender 8.

Disclaimer: there are several more good companies that I either could
not find/access their site quickly, there was no eval software, or I
wasn't interested enough in what I saw on their website to download
their eval copy. Also, the prices are from the manufacturer's website
and may be available cheaper from other sources.

When you pick one, be sure to download the eval copy and make sure it
will install and run.
 
From: "James Egan" <[email protected]>

| On Sat, 21 May 2005 15:47:44 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|
| Just how big do you imagine his home network is?
|
| Jim.

I don't think that's the point.
 
From: "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]>

| David H. Lipman answered:| except that in .alt groups, a charter means absoultely NOTHING. And is
| WORTHLESS.

That BS.

Whoever told you that is flat wrong. *Mant* in the Alt.* hierarchy have a Charter and/or
FAQ.
ISPs odten enforce their ToS based upon them.
 
From: "Duane Arnold" <[email protected]>


| Well why does it have to be a server? You can run SQL Server and IIS
| 6 on the Win 2k pro or XP Pro workstation versions and you can find
| an AV solution free or not free that will run on those versions of
| the O/S(s).
|
| If you're hanging on the Win 2k3 O/S, then you'll have to pay for a
| server version AV that will run on Win 2k3.
|
| Duane :)
|

Duane:

Aren't you then limited to no more than 10 concurrent connections ?
That's the max. connections in Win2K and WinXP
Click to expand...

Well if the OP is just doing development work why does the OP need a server
version? He can do it all with the above workstation versions. If he was
exposing a Web server for business that would be one thing and one would
need more connections. The typical home user with some Web server is not
going to have 10 concurrent connections 9 times out of 10. And if one does
hit that capacity, one user would have to wait and try later -- no big deal
IMHO.

Duane :)
 
David H. Lipman answered:
From: "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]>

| David H. Lipman answered:


| except that in .alt groups, a charter means absoultely NOTHING. And is
| WORTHLESS.

That BS.

Whoever told you that is flat wrong. *Mant* in the Alt.* hierarchy have a Charter and/or
FAQ.
ISPs odten enforce their ToS based upon them.
Click to expand...
Obviously you know not of which you speak. Just because many groups
hve charters doesn't mean they MEAN anything.

LOOK IT UP don't take MY word for it. A charter in a .alt group, is
COMPLETELY unenforceable, and worthless. Thats why the .ALT

LOOK IT UP.
 
From: "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]>


| Obviously you know not of which you speak. Just because many groups
| hve charters doesn't mean they MEAN anything.
|
| LOOK IT UP don't take MY word for it. A charter in a .alt group, is
| COMPLETELY unenforceable, and worthless. Thats why the .ALT
|
| LOOK IT UP.

I have and I have read the Terms of Service (ToS) and Authorized Use Policy (AUP) of *many*
ISPs.

I stick to my statement.
 
David H. Lipman answered:
From: "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]>


| Obviously you know not of which you speak. Just because many groups
| hve charters doesn't mean they MEAN anything.
|
| LOOK IT UP don't take MY word for it. A charter in a .alt group, is
| COMPLETELY unenforceable, and worthless. Thats why the .ALT
|
| LOOK IT UP.

I have and I have read the Terms of Service (ToS) and Authorized Use Policy (AUP) of *many*
ISPs.

I stick to my statement.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're not looking in the right place then. As ISP's have
*ABSOLUTLY NOTHING* to do with usenet. Those are rules for thier OWN
customers. The authority that runs Usenet is totally seperate from ANY
ISP. In reality, alt. groups, are not really even usenet. They are an
ALTernate to usenet.
 
Duane Arnold said:
Well if the OP is just doing development work why does the OP need a
server
version? He can do it all with the above workstation versions. If he was
exposing a Web server for business that would be one thing and one would
need more connections. The typical home user with some Web server is not
going to have 10 concurrent connections 9 times out of 10. And if one does
hit that capacity, one user would have to wait and try later -- no big
deal
IMHO.

Duane :)
Click to expand...

If you've ever developed anything anywhere anyhow.... you will know that the
code you have working perfectly on your development machine will refuse to
work point blank on a live machine as soon as you assume otherwise.

There is only one way to develop software for running on a server - test it
on a server first...

Anyway, my question wasn't about whether I ought, or ought not, to have a
server.

Chris
 
If you've ever developed anything anywhere anyhow.... you will know
that the code you have working perfectly on your development machine
will refuse to work point blank on a live machine as soon as you
assume otherwise.
Click to expand...

I have developed more than anything, anywhere and anyhow in real world
situations starting with development moving to test and to production
servers in the development, test and production implementation cycles. And
it all depends on what is running on those servers other applications using
common dlls, other such resources and whatnot on the server as to whether
something that is developed at the workstation or sever level is going to
run at the server level. And 9 times out of 10 what works on the devlopment
should work on test and should work on production servers if all
environemntes have the same basic setup and are controlled properly.
There is only one way to develop software for running on a server -
test it on a server first...
Click to expand...


There is not to much of a difference between the core components of the NT
based O/S whether it be workstation or server.

The only conflicts there might be in something that ran on a NT based
workstation as opposed to a NT based server are conflicts with other
applications using common dlls laid down by applications that were running
out on the server. But as far as the two NT based O/S(s) and their base O/S
core components in the NT scheme, I doubt it. However, nothing is for sure.
Anyway, my question wasn't about whether I ought, or ought not, to
have a server.
Click to expand...

It was a suggestion and you can take it or leave it. Either way, it doesn't
mean anything to me and good luck in finding some free AV that's going to
run on a Win 2k3 server. I doubt it.

Duane :)
 
Back
Top