9 servers 120 users 1 exchange server. Who is the best Trendmicro or Norton?
Please help
Printable View
9 servers 120 users 1 exchange server. Who is the best Trendmicro or Norton?
Please help
Well, I would not go for Norton, it is a resource hog and prone to conflicts.
Trend Micro have blotted their copybook by releasing a pattern file that cost a lot of people a fair bit of time sorting out the mess it caused. They admit that they did not test it properly.
Have you considered Kaspersky, AVG, Panda or McAfee?
Cheers :)
I use GroupShield 6 for Exchange from McAfee. Running Exchange 2003 on a single server for about 500 users. I've been using GroupShield since version 4.5 on Exchange 5.5, and have been liking it all the way.
I agree with Nihil about Norton: resource hog PLUS it proxy's the service ports it protects which causes those ports to show as open when scanning your network...very frustrating.
I have alot of experience with McAfee on clients and servers, and Antigen by Sybari on the Exchange servers - like them both. Antigen is very good...McAfee is OK but does tend to have performance issues at times.
I dont have experience with Trend Micro but have heard good things about them on servers.
One thing that I DONT recommend and that is to use the same product on all environments (clients, servers, email). I've personally found that there are real benefits to having the email servers on diff AV than clients: not all AV engines (re.; products) get their signatures updated at the same timeframe and you could be exposed longer if you have both on one AV product. This and defense in depth involves layers of protection.
Hope this helped you.
AVG Enterprise Edition
http://www.grisoft.com/doc/Enterpris...g/us/tpl/tpl01
$1740 for 120 2 yr network licenses
$120 for 10 2 yr file servers
$1390 120 mailboxes, 2 yrs also
Food for thought....
NOT SYMANTEC!!!!! I like mcafee and AVG
I used Sophos at my last job in a similarly sized organization. Very good at detecting viruses but the user interface for disinfection was a bit clumsy.
We've got CA eTrust here. Seems ok.
I have had good success with fsecure, we have 3 servers and 60 workstations roughly, works well in mass updates and virus scans.
Okay I think that we are defeniatly going to go with Trendmicro on the clients, it is what we currently have OfficeScan 5. We would stay with it, but they are stopping all updates for it in a couple of months. We will probably stick with MailScan by Trendmicro as well. But what is a good server side AV?
We have been using Symantec for quite some time for about 1200 servers and over 10,000 workstations with only the resource issue - when scanning - to be the pinching point. What other resource issues have others run into with Symantec? Will have to ask if they (client services admins) considered AVG.
We also use McAfee for some Unix variant servers, which works pretty slick in terms of getting updates and scanning the boxes.
I hate groupshield. Nothing but problems with it. Groupshield 6 is a resource hog on really busy servers. I have 1 8-way HP system running GS6.0 right now and the GS process rpcserv.exe uses up around 40-65% of the total processor. Of course the install for GS5.5 is totally crap and bombs out most of the time when installed on a clustered system. The system usually runs at 45% total processor utilization, but with GS6.0 it runs at 98-100% utilization during peak times. And NAI can't fix it. If you stop GS the processor goes back down to 40% utilization. And we are not the only people having this problem. Do a search on rpcserv.exe and GS6.0 processor utilization and you will get lots of hits on google.Quote:
Originally posted here by Panic
I use GroupShield 6 for Exchange from McAfee. Running Exchange 2003 on a single server for about 500 users. I've been using GroupShield since version 4.5 on Exchange 5.5, and have been liking it all the way.
The best answer- go with whomever will give you the software cheapest.
On exchange trendmicro is the best product I have used in terms of setup, ease of use, and functionality. NAI support just sucks.
I'm with thwhomp on this one. On our network (which is comparitavely smaller), we use Symantec's Corporate Edition AV 8.1 and the only time I notice "resource hogging" is during scans. Outside of that, it's an excellent product.
Yet again, I see bashing Symantec has become an assemblage of complaints that yield little or no tangible evidence to any actual flaws with the product itself. My apologies if I come off as a ***** but, to date, I've never had any major issues with any Symantec product.
We've always used Mcafee, it maybe using more resources than we like, but GS has always been our first line of defence against insider attacks. We dont have huge loads on our servers, ~50-100 depending on how many are connecting remotely, but i stand by mcafee, ive always loved norton on the desktop use, hated mcafee, but once i really saw it in action, i was impressed...
However, we have never really had the chance to benchmark a couple of different solutions, we'll probably get around to it when our current lics. run out !
Hmmm, what about Bitdefender? http://www.bitdefender.us/index.php ?
Does bitdefender support server 2003? and for the client side we are looking for something that is centrally managed, and can be installed through a script and updated the same way.