W
WAP
Looking at the two biggies (Symantec/Norton and McAffee), I feel a
certain distrust. Maybe it's the recent debacles surrounding both of
them. Maybe it's that McAffee has always screwed up whatever computer I
install their stuff on. Maybe it's the way Symantec Anti-Virus corporate
10.0 caused blue-screen-of-death crashes on my Windows Server 2003 box.
Anyways, I'm now looking for a recommendation OTHER than those two.
So far, I've looked at Sophos, Kaspersky, etc. I would like:
1. a nice centralized server admin tool, so updates download once from
the internet and are dispersed to the clients.
2. the frigging background scans should be strictly limited
to off-business-hours, I hate that stupid rtvscan.exe taking up all
my CPU cycles, and thrashing my disk, at whatever time it feels like
doing so, thank you very much Symantec.
3. the users should not be adversely affected by being infected
by this anti-virus software. That is to say, the innoculation should
not produce worse symptoms than the the disease we're innoculating against.
4. incoming and outgoing EMAIL on the user's client-of-choice should be
protected (presumably by some kind of SMTP and POP3 transparent proxy)
Regards,
WP.
Toronto Canada
certain distrust. Maybe it's the recent debacles surrounding both of
them. Maybe it's that McAffee has always screwed up whatever computer I
install their stuff on. Maybe it's the way Symantec Anti-Virus corporate
10.0 caused blue-screen-of-death crashes on my Windows Server 2003 box.
Anyways, I'm now looking for a recommendation OTHER than those two.
So far, I've looked at Sophos, Kaspersky, etc. I would like:
1. a nice centralized server admin tool, so updates download once from
the internet and are dispersed to the clients.
2. the frigging background scans should be strictly limited
to off-business-hours, I hate that stupid rtvscan.exe taking up all
my CPU cycles, and thrashing my disk, at whatever time it feels like
doing so, thank you very much Symantec.
3. the users should not be adversely affected by being infected
by this anti-virus software. That is to say, the innoculation should
not produce worse symptoms than the the disease we're innoculating against.
4. incoming and outgoing EMAIL on the user's client-of-choice should be
protected (presumably by some kind of SMTP and POP3 transparent proxy)
Regards,
WP.
Toronto Canada