RE: Antivirus Comparison

["Joe_Wulf" <Joe_Wulf () yahoo com>]

I believe the 'comparison' chart should be concentrated on two primary focus
area's.

The first is functionality, how easy/difficult it is to install/uninstall, what
platforms does it address (Unix, Windoze; 32/64 bit), some method to address its
'enterprise-ness', how well it operates (not what it catches, that is in part
two) from a user/admin-perspective, the breadth and depth of its 'feature-set',
evaluation of its processor cycle consumption, how well can it protect live
systems, as well as searching files at rest, how well does it protect itself
from being 'turned off' and/or uninstalled by malware, etc...

The second is a repetitive process where each one is configured for maximum
intensity in searching, and loaded with the latest virus definitions, and thrown
at a VERY extensive read-only archive of tens of thousands of pieces of malware,
what percentage does each 'catch', what is the extent of the archive (# of
pieces) and how long did the search take.  Such an archive should be 'added' to
(daily?, minutely?), and this test re-run on a regular/periodic basis, with the
results publicly published.

Now that would be really useful.
 
R,
-Joe Wulf, CISSP
 ProSync Technology Group, LLC
 www.prosync.com
 Senior IA Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: Lance.Druger () wellsfargo com [mailto:Lance.Druger () wellsfargo com] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 11:19
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Antivirus Comparison

I have to agree Kaspresky seems to be the best from what I've heard.  I used to
be part of an anti-virus newsgroup way back when prior to his creating a company
(or at least prior to my being aware of it) and he really knew his stuff.  

Lance Druger


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Stovall [mailto:mstovall () charlestonforge com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 6:49 AM
To: Harrison Holland; Jim Hull at 044
Cc: nick; zakirasta () gmail com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Antivirus Comparison

AVG is horrible when it comes to detecting Trojans, though.

Matt Stovall
Charleston Forge
251 Industrial Park Drive
Boone, NC 28607
(828) 264-0100 ext. 159
mstovall () charlestonforge com

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrison Holland [mailto:harrisonholland () gmail com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:54 AM
To: Jim Hull at 044
Cc: nick; zakirasta () gmail com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Antivirus Comparison

I'd check out AVG.  It's free and it works great.

On 9/27/05, Jim Hull at 044 <JHHull () itt-tech edu> wrote:
> www.virusbtn.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nick [mailto:nick () mobilia it]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:06 AM
> To: zakirasta () gmail com
> Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: Antivirus Comparison
>
>
> zakirasta () gmail com wrote:
> > can anyone give me a comparison chart between all these antivirus...
looking for comparison between norton, f-secure and trend micro.
> > any link will be very helpfull.
> I think you'll find that most of those companies forbid comparisons in 
> their EULAs and end user agreements...


--
Harrison Holland



This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail
if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your
system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability
for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version.  

Charleston Forge, 251 Industrial Park Drive, Boone, NC 28607
http://www.charlestonforge.com