o.t. virus checkers etc.

Not many sales of spiced and canned panda then.

If I didn't use Kapersky I'd use Nod ;-)

If I were worried I use my linux box, even though I cannot figure out how to change things on it.

AJH

On or around Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:26:20 -0000, "Jim Roberts" enlightened us thusly:

My personal recommendation is F-prot.

But others swear by Norton. Personally, I dislike Symantec, so I don't buy their stuff - increasingly, they're empire-building as well, taking over everyone else...

I also use Agnitum Outpost firewall, and have in the past used ZoneAlarm, both seem Ok - I went for Outpost 'cos it was a bit cheaper for the full version, I think. Nicely flexible, too.

Putting my "I look after enterprise AV" hat on, we found norton to be 60% effective in testing, whereas mcafee was 99% effective. Norman was about

88%, avg was 93% and f-secure was about 90%

We went mcafee

In the non-enterprise world, I like avg and mcafee.

Firewall wise, kerios -

- is great. Especially as its free for home users

Si

AVG from Grisoft, its free

Peter.

"Jim Roberts" wrote >

Personally I have used, am using, both Symantec (Norton) and McAfee and much prefer the latter. Easier to use, easier to renew, and automatic updates, basically set it up and forget it. A computer geek told me he gets more problems caused by Symantecs program conflicting with others too.

If you have a virus, McAfee have some free tools on their site to rid you of most common ones.

Hope that helps.

I'm on hoary

I'm not sure because I'm still dabbling and currently I'm using it as installed. I like Knode for newsreading but it doesn't seem to let me preserve interesting posts like agent does.

AJH

If you use Norton use the separate antivirus package (and if you want a firewall their separate personal firewall package). These stand-alone packages work better than the integrated packages which Imo tend to be a bit too complicated for their own good.

I understand the Norton '06 antivirus package (which is available now) updates automatically on a daily basis. I have used Norton products in both a commercial and home based set-up since way back (eighties) and only experienced a significant problem in one instance.

I used the free AVG offering a couple of years back for a short period and had more problems in just a few months _but_ it is your choice.

If I didn't use Norton I would use Kaspersky.

Richard

I use Symantec (Norton) at the client sites I administer and it does the job admirably.

I've also been using eTrust on a few standalone PC's that only have dial-up connections as the signature update files are small.

Which distribution ? The latest ones from (K)ubuntu or Suse are dead easy to administer.

What do you want to change ? Steve

McAfee used to be good, but too many problems these days and indifferent support. Clients who use Symantec have more problems than any others NOD32 or Trend Micro seem to be pretty trouble free. The free ones? I rather suspect you get what you pay for, I've never tried them myself but I do have a few impoverished clients that use AVG without too much drama.

But nothing will give you 100% protection, common sense needs to be applied as well as relying upon software.

Karen

This is the link to the free version of AVG:

AVG is effective and no trouble maker.

Hi,

I disagree with Si about Norton - I've found it effective in both corporate and domestic environments. Easy to setup and configure.

Mcafee on the other hand is full of bugs, and has a severe impact on the system if you use on access scanning.

Sophos is also pretty good - the update mechanism is excellent.

Cheers Graham Carter Carter Computer Services Harare Zimbabwe

I've been using Grisofts AVG for years now. Never encountered any problems. In my experience it's much less of a hassle than Norton, which I used to run because it was preinstalled. I use a Sygate fire wall and WinPatrol, Diamondcs' Registry Protection and PrevX for good measure. I don't think I'm overdoing it, because I spend all day (and night, if deadlines creep up on me) on the internet. I use Pegasus Mail because Pegasus' html-renderer prevents me from accidentally openening infected (html)attachments.

Richard

Jim Roberts wrote:

Worth a read

Richard

There is no such thing as security, just various levels of insecurity.

Joskin

Imho, virus-checkers are always late. They offer no protection to the zero-day exploits. Therefore I don't use anti-virus sw, but a firewall instead. In the near future this firewall will be running on a proxy server (i.e. an old machine that is of no other use anymore). In addition to that, I refuse to open html e-mails and/or attachments. My correspondants know their html junk simply gets deleted. Most of the viruses are eating machines through social engineering, you know.

You might wanna change that into

...