What antivirus to use SBS 2008ST R2
|
From: Leythos on 30 Jan 2010 19:09 In article <u39aMZSoKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net says... > > Ronald wrote: > > Hello > > > > What antivirus application do you suggest for SBS 2008 R2 - a single server > > licsence is needed. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > None. > > Seriously. > > Protect the workstations, but I'm seriously questioning the value of > antivirus on a server due to the risk of false positives and how heavy > handed all of them are these days. I would rather rely on backups and AV than to have no AV protection at the server memory and file level. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] on 30 Jan 2010 19:37 I don't get any false Positives? Or I haven't seen any except in Emails and on PC's? And for under $40.00 a year to cover the server its pretty cheap insurance. Compared to the file that get's infected, and not found out until it's needed at the end of the year when tax time comes... I'd have some major explaining to a client how come I didn't recommend $40.00 to save file(s) that are worth way more than that... CYA is my Philosphy... :) Your Mileage May differ :) Russ -- Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] Microsoft Gold Certified Partner Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist 24hr SBS Remote Support - http://www.SBITS.Biz Microsoft Online Services - http://www.microsoft-online-services.com "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25ce944f28a88b3498a0e6(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > In article <u39aMZSoKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net > says... >> >> Ronald wrote: >> > Hello >> > >> > What antivirus application do you suggest for SBS 2008 R2 - a single >> > server >> > licsence is needed. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > >> None. >> >> Seriously. >> >> Protect the workstations, but I'm seriously questioning the value of >> antivirus on a server due to the risk of false positives and how heavy >> handed all of them are these days. > > I would rather rely on backups and AV than to have no AV protection at > the server memory and file level. > > -- > You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little > voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. > Trust yourself. > spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 31 Jan 2010 10:18 In article <uYjJU2goKHA.5328(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, russ(a)REMOVETHIS.sbits.biz says... > I don't get any false Positives? > I've been using Symantec Corporate Edition on servers and workstations since version 6, never had a false positive, but, with version 10.0.something I did have it corrupt a random user profile, say 1 out of 100 profiles about once every 2 months.... It took them about 4 months to fix it, but going back to a previous release removed the problem. I've stopped using Symantec Corporate Edition and use Avira now, still no false positives. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Cliff Galiher - MVP on 31 Jan 2010 14:07 False positives aside, how may *true* positives have your *server* products caught? Remember, we're not talking about the client machines here, but the server itself. ....for the record, I'm not ready to abandon AV on the server yet either, but I see Susan's point. They are heavy-handed, WAAAAYYYY too resource intensive for the amount of security they provide, bloated, a PITA to manage, did I mention resource intensive?, generally ineffective (google hack?), and rarely, if ever, catch something that wouldn't otherwise be caught by the free MS malicious software removal tool. In short, a zero-day exploit like the google hack slides right by an AV product, and keeping your server patched and avoiding bad habits (browsing etc) avoids *most* of the rest of the issues. For me, it is an old habit to break and I'm not *quite* ready to let go of my safety blankets yet....but I see a very real argument to be made here and I'm not far from being convinced... -Cliff "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25cf6961caad8ac898a0e9(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > In article <uYjJU2goKHA.5328(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, > russ(a)REMOVETHIS.sbits.biz says... >> I don't get any false Positives? >> > > I've been using Symantec Corporate Edition on servers and workstations > since version 6, never had a false positive, but, with version > 10.0.something I did have it corrupt a random user profile, say 1 out of > 100 profiles about once every 2 months.... It took them about 4 months > to fix it, but going back to a previous release removed the problem. > > I've stopped using Symantec Corporate Edition and use Avira now, still > no false positives. > > -- > You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little > voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. > Trust yourself. > spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Susan Bradley on 31 Jan 2010 14:40
Leythos wrote: > In article <u39aMZSoKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net > says... > >> Ronald wrote: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> What antivirus application do you suggest for SBS 2008 R2 - a single server >>> licsence is needed. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >> None. >> >> Seriously. >> >> Protect the workstations, but I'm seriously questioning the value of >> antivirus on a server due to the risk of false positives and how heavy >> handed all of them are these days. >> > > I would rather rely on backups and AV than to have no AV protection at > the server memory and file level. > > A backup does not fix the issue where antivirus vendors are installing firewalls and causing network traffic to come to a halt, or the issue where the Exchange aware a/v is shutting down email after a week and causing issues. Symantec is not without it's past issues as well. |