nick76

Level 1
Hello all,
I've a question for you.. I'm looking for a very solid AV & anti malware for the enterprise I work for. the infrastructure is composed of 50 servers and 300 workstations. We all work with Microsoft products: windows xp, windows 7, windows server 2003r2/2008r2, sql server, exchange, sharepoint, ....

which is for you the best corporate av with hightest ratio/lightness on systems?

thank you very much

Nick
 
D

Deleted member 178

I will suggest you Norton (for traditional vendors), it has wide infrastructure and efficient support team in case of issues, they called me by phone, just to be sure i resolve mine, after i told to the webchat-support that i dont have time to do a remote support ^^

my issue was to use NIS without the FW , but when they called me i changed my mind to use NAV :D
 
D

Deleted member 178

Heard but never try, remember that you will install it in many computers with different specifications, the solution you will choose must be efficient and light on system with no user interventions.

you can have a 10-engines AV, if the user click yes on every files and popups from the AV, it will be useless.

Personally i like to add a rollback (deepfreeze, etc...) or virtualization system (sandboxie) on those machines so in case of infections you just have to reboot to negate all effects.

after it depend of the IT team and company needs.
 

nick76

Level 1
you're right. plus our users aren't so oriented to prudence... We had once Norton but we didn't like it...
 

malbky

New Member
Go with Mcafee. Most big enterprises use it. I would recommend Multi AV engines in such a large setup. Bug solving can be problematic. McAfee has great detections in its enterprise product.
 

network86

New Member
The IT company i currently work with are a reseller of Mcafee. We have had a lot of calls in relation to PCs being infected while Mcafee sits there doing nothing. So i wouldn't recommend Mcafee. Previously we provided Symantec and that hasnt proved to be great either. For home users i would recommend Symantec, but not for business. Maybe they dont use the same features?? I have been doing some research and Kaspersky and Vipre seem to get great reviews and seem ok. But everyone has their own opinion, that's just mine :)
 
P

Plexx

You could try ESET Endpoint but it is not cheap, although I haven't compared to other's price.

In ESET homepage, select For Business.
 

pcjunklist

Level 1
It is true Mcafee is just plain horrible whether it be enterprise or desktop. The Symantec your thinking of is the older SEP (before version 12) which used Truscan. Oddly enough the desktop version came out with the new Sonar scanning before the enterprise version however both run the newer technology. The only differentiation between the SEP and Norton is the management part of the program.

network86 said:
The IT company i currently work with are a reseller of Mcafee. We have had a lot of calls in relation to PCs being infected while Mcafee sits there doing nothing. So i wouldn't recommend Mcafee. Previously we provided Symantec and that hasnt proved to be great either. For home users i would recommend Symantec, but not for business. Maybe they dont use the same features?? I have been doing some research and Kaspersky and Vipre seem to get great reviews and seem ok. But everyone has their own opinion, that's just mine :)
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Only ever seen Sophos, Symantec and McAfee used on enterprise networks.

At the moment, I'd say look at Kaspersky Business Solutions for Large Business. Worth a shot right?
 

nick76

Level 1
Now we're on VIPRE Business and we're not so satisfied. It terribly light (in normal state) on resources and on speed scan, but doesn't recognize catch common viruses (i.e. conficker) unless is on maximum protection (and no performance at all). Also console is really easy to use and to deploy, but I say, I'm not so much satisfied
Before we were on CA eTrust and this one was really painful to manage...
 

nick76

Level 1
Earth you're right. I wanna try Kaspersky or BitDefender. Someone uses in a corporate environment? because my labs are not so widely extended to simulate a real approach on performances (on wks, servers and networks), and detection rate.
 

loveboy_lion

Level 1
Verified
You could also Try Comodo Read below for detail info
http://www.comodo.com/business-security/endpoint-security-manager/editions/1.6.php
 

malbky

New Member
Dont try Bitdefender on Corporate environment. You can try Trustports enter prise edition. Or go with Kaspersky. Indian Railways uses Kaspersky to protect their servers.
 

nick76

Level 1
I malbky, thank you for your post. why you suggest not using bitdefender? what's wrong with it?
thank you very much
 

loveboy_lion

Level 1
Verified
nick76 said:
I malbky, thank you for your post. why you suggest not using bitdefender? what's wrong with it?
thank you very much
I would not use bitdefender since you can use other products using the same engine and with more features
I would recommend the following

Comodo - good detection and protection , Easy to Configure , Cheap on money , Good Support , Warranty that protects against damage

Trustport - Good to great detection (Bitdefender+AVG) , Easy to configure , Good Support , Lots of Features , Price Unknown

Kaspersky - Good to great detection , Good Support , High on Money.
 

network86

New Member
nick76 said:
Before we were on CA eTrust and this one was really painful to manage...
Could not agree more. Some of our clients have this and its terrible to work with. Apparently its not owned by CA anymore, but Total Defense?
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
My choice since I have seen lots of companies use it is, Symantec Endpoint protection. You can have and control updates and how and what parts of the program that people can access. Plus it's built for business.
 

nick76

Level 1
totalDefense... I think the WORST security software EVER. during the tests period in our labs, I called I think 100 times the support to install and configure.. then I got I think more BSOD than we ever had in production. and the protection we tested was really really really poor...