Mcafee - Opinion please

[Tx2]

I've just purchased a new laptop from Dell, and it comes with a 3yr
version of the Mcafee SecurityCenter.

Prior to this, on my desktop, i've used a combination of NOD32,
Counterspy and Spywareguard. For anti-spam I used Spamihilator.

I'm in two minds as to whether to give this Mcafee a chance instead of
getting additional licences to cover the laptop for the other software.

What is the general conscensus of opinion about Mcafee? Is it reliable
*and* efficient in what it does, or should I bin it and go for my own
'tailored' solution?


--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages from Google Groups are set to auto ignore.

[Greasy Rider]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:35:31 -0000, Tx2
<this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> postulated :

>What is the general conscensus of opinion about Mcafee? Is it reliable
>*and* efficient in what it does, or should I bin it and go for my own
>'tailored' solution?

I've never forgiven McAfee for allowing a virus to clobber my drive in
April of 2000. Been using Norton ever since.

[Tx2]

In article <istur259966nhtpj744snlmue77bhitu0n@4ax.com>,
Greasy Rider <ibm904419@earthlinkSPAM.net>
thought we'd be interested in the following...


> I've never forgiven McAfee for allowing a virus to clobber my drive in
> April of 2000. Been using Norton ever since.


hmmm, by the very same token, i've only ever seen problematic machines
when Norton's involved.

I do wonder at the 'strength' of Mcafee in respect of what i've been
using, but the fact I'd have to spend quite a bit to go down the same
route as my desktop when i've got 3yrs free with Mcafee, has made me
pause for thought.

Norton will not even get a look-in on this machine.


--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages from Google Groups are set to auto ignore.

[Leythos]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:04:30 +0000, Tx2 wrote:

> In article <istur259966nhtpj744snlmue77bhitu0n@4ax.com>,
> Greasy Rider <ibm904419@earthlinkSPAM.net>
> thought we'd be interested in the following...
>
>
>> I've never forgiven McAfee for allowing a virus to clobber my drive in
>> April of 2000. Been using Norton ever since.
>
>
> hmmm, by the very same token, i've only ever seen problematic machines
> when Norton's involved.
>
> I do wonder at the 'strength' of Mcafee in respect of what i've been
> using, but the fact I'd have to spend quite a bit to go down the same
> route as my desktop when i've got 3yrs free with Mcafee, has made me
> pause for thought.
>
> Norton will not even get a look-in on this machine.

We handle the IT needs of several sororities and find that McAfee shows
the following problems on users machines:

1) They purchase and install, but they never register it
2) Being unregistered they never get updates
3) Since the pretty bars show some sign of protection, even with very old
definition, they think they are protected
4) Users are compromised because the product does not auto-update unless
the users registered for updates.

With the above said, we have found that AVG is next to worthless in that
same environment - they (users) typically use AVG Free, but it appears to
be setup properly and they also appear to have updates working daily, but,
they still get infected - the most common infection is a virus with it's
own SMTP engine or something from YIM or AIM.

The machines with Panda, CA, and Symantec (corp) were not compromised or
infected that we could tell.

--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com

[Tx2]

In article <1170177263_6101@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
thought we'd be interested in the following...

[...]


> We handle the IT needs of several sororities and find that McAfee shows
> the following problems on users machines:
>
> 1) They purchase and install, but they never register it
> 2) Being unregistered they never get updates
> 3) Since the pretty bars show some sign of protection, even with very old
> definition, they think they are protected
> 4) Users are compromised because the product does not auto-update unless
> the users registered for updates.

None of the above will be an issue for me. I have already registered the
software, updated, check the config to make sure it auto-updates (with
notifications on) and have thus far checked and double checked on
numerous occasions!

So, IYO, you are saying the 'suite' is perfectly adequate?

--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages from Google Groups are set to auto ignore.

[Leythos]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:18:00 +0000, Tx2 wrote:

> In article <1170177263_6101@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> thought we'd be interested in the following...
>
> [...]
>
>
>> We handle the IT needs of several sororities and find that McAfee shows
>> the following problems on users machines:
>>
>> 1) They purchase and install, but they never register it
>> 2) Being unregistered they never get updates
>> 3) Since the pretty bars show some sign of protection, even with very old
>> definition, they think they are protected
>> 4) Users are compromised because the product does not auto-update unless
>> the users registered for updates.
>
> None of the above will be an issue for me. I have already registered the
> software, updated, check the config to make sure it auto-updates (with
> notifications on) and have thus far checked and double checked on
> numerous occasions!
>
> So, IYO, you are saying the 'suite' is perfectly adequate?

If you ensure that you are keeping the definitions fully updated then I
would say that your "Antivirus" solution is "adequate", but I don't use
their "suites" so I can't say for the rest.

--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com

[Adam Piggott]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tx2 wrote:
> I've just purchased a new laptop from Dell, and it comes with a 3yr
> version of the Mcafee SecurityCenter.
>
> Prior to this, on my desktop, i've used a combination of NOD32,
> Counterspy and Spywareguard. For anti-spam I used Spamihilator.
>
> I'm in two minds as to whether to give this Mcafee a chance instead of
> getting additional licences to cover the laptop for the other software.
>
> What is the general conscensus of opinion about Mcafee? Is it reliable
> *and* efficient in what it does, or should I bin it and go for my own
> 'tailored' solution?

Blimey, I'm surprised being a NOD32 user that you didn't go straight back
to it. Mind you, one does has to test the water now and then.

I've had to remove McAfee from several customer machines because they
weren't updating properly, weren't warning the user they were weeks out of
date, or had severe resource usage.

I'd avoid the "big name" anti-virus as they mostly concentrate on next
year's shiny new version with bigger warning signs and more vapourware
features, whereas the likes of Eset have better things to do. Like protect
their customers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFv8yv7uRVdtPsXDkRAqwnAJ9jOUQKlaKzZhVXfwluhK f2IKYWqQCgnRXd
9Ot0gSVg0ZRuUz2XcSs+jlU=
=kJGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tx2]

In article <45bfcca7$0$760$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
Adam Piggott <usenet@proactiveservices.co.invalid>
thought we'd be interested in the following...


> Blimey, I'm surprised being a NOD32 user that you didn't go straight back
> to it. Mind you, one does has to test the water now and then.

Tested, and reverted! I've uninstalled Mcafee, and whacked NOD32 back
on.

Despite my efforts to 'enforce' it, Mcafee seemed to not start the virus
scan element of the software automatically, then it did, then it didn't,
then it did - ad infinitum.

I feel a lot better now...

:-)


--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages from Google Groups are set to auto ignore.

[greg@webyourbusiness.com]

On Jan 31, 1:39 pm, Tx2 <this.is.an....@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:
> In article <45bfcca7$0$760$5a6ae...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
> Adam Piggott <use...@proactiveservices.co.invalid>
> thought we'd be interested in the following...
>
> > Blimey, I'm surprised being aNOD32user that you didn't go straight back
> > to it. Mind you, one does has to test the water now and then.
>
> Tested, and reverted! I've uninstalled Mcafee, and whackedNOD32back
> on.
>
> Despite my efforts to 'enforce' it, Mcafee seemed to not start the virus
> scan element of the software automatically, then it did, then it didn't,
> then it did - ad infinitum.
>
> I feel a lot better now...
>
> :-)
>

and so you should - even a "free" version of norton or mcafee isn't
worth the hard-drive space they take up!

http://www.nod32usa.com/ - NOD32 all the way.. lean and mean on
threat!