3 ms·
>Why do IT depts recommend installing this program? My suspicion is that they need something to spend a lot of money on. That old "more expensive perfume = bet
by RevRal 16y ago
>Why do IT depts recommend installing this program?
My suspicion is that they need something to spend a lot of money on. That old "more expensive perfume = better" thing, to appease the managers. I could be wrong.
- maukdaddy 16y agoYou are. Despite all of its shortcomings, AV is still pretty effective at blocking crap for non-technical users. Perfect? Of course not. But even a 50% catch rate is better than nothing. At my current job, we see our fair share of 0-day and too-new-to-be-caught-by-AV stuff. However, we also see a great deal of infections from viruses that are at least 1-2 years old. Even stupid AV can catch viruses that old.
- RevRal 16y agoI mean McAfee in lieu of a less expensive perfume, like Avast. I'm assuming Avast is less expensive.... Avast is better, though. (And is it just me or is HN freaking out right now?)
- maukdaddy 16y agoThe only problem with Avast is enterprise management. Products like Symantec and McAfee suck, but at least provide options for managing 100k+ deployments.
- sokoloff 16y agoHave a look at Sophos (http://www.sophos.com/ http://www.sophos.com/). It was the only one I found in my testing to not destroy Windows filesystem performance when real-time scanning was enabled and to have no discernable impact when real-time scanning was disabled. (Symantec, McAfee, AVG and Avast all hurt disk performance quite a bit, EVEN when disabled, merely by being installed. F-secure was the only other I found to not harm disk performance when installed but inactive.) Sophos also has a decent enterprise management console. No connection, other than as a customer.