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.
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.
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
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.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote