At 10:29 AM 3/14/01 +0800, Jijo wrote:
>I've been a long-time user of McAfee (on our Winblows
>clients, of course, I'm still looking at doing server-side virus
>scanning), and am happy with the intervals at which they release updates.
>
Join the beta program, the last time they had one - they were giving away
the version 1.4.0 scan engines for Solaris, Linux, DOS, etc.
>Has anybody compared NAI VirusScan with TrendMicro's on Linux? I'm
>thinking that since this will be scanning a lot of stuff (I'm looking at
>automatically checking the files in our Samba shares as well as e-mail
>through the Postfix MTA), performance and resource utilization of the
>program is important. They're both virus scanners, but which of them will
>be kindest to the server?
>
I've only tested uvscan, McAfee's linux/unix version. I did a simple
comparison with TM's A/V and others before but that was under winblows.
Under RH 6.2 on a pentium 233MMX 64MB, although top reported 83% - 90% cpu
usage for uvscan alone, gnome was still usable - though not snappy. On
another test, when I ran scan.exe under dosemu, cpu and memory both hit
from 90% to 98%. Actually - I was also testing DPMI handling under dosemu.
It is actually a better test then red alert for dos4gw!
I've been using Viruscan since version 117, circa 1994 and for DOS
commandline scanning - which is an absolute must during an infection - they
come second only to the old Thunderbyte anti-virus. Since McAfee bought
Solomon A/V Toolkit, no one has come close to their performance when all
you have is a DOS box under linux to scan your hosed winblows partition.
>While a lot may argue that I should just keep the virus scanning on the
>client workstations running Windows, it's cheaper in terms of licenses and
>easier to maintain a central server setup. The workstations will still
>need virus scan software installed for things they do like surfing the
>web, but by having e-mail and most of the files handled by the server-side
>virus scan, we reduce the urgency of keeping the workstation virus data
>files updated.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
It is cheaper and more efficient. Based on experience, the best way to do
this is to set up viruscan to scan the whole HDD upon startup, before
winblows loads. Users tend to shut down the scanner because it slows
everything down in winblows - and then they call the sysad when they get
hit. Besides - there are critters out there that specifically search and
shut down resident A/V software.
Paolo Carballo
= http://www.mydestiny.net/~jplc/ GnuPG 1.0.4 KeyID 1EAD657C
= Linux *is* stable. It runs Windows and DOS without a single shutdown.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
