«

Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.

Many thanks.

Tom

"Tom" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Tom

I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as far
as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for McAfee
for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so for
another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!

There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...

Thanks. I'm currently running Norton Corporate, but my confidence in
anything "Norton" is not entirely solid. I'll take a look McAfee to see
what they have that's W2k3 Server compatible.



"Toolman Tim" <> wrote in
news:rbMYd.4884$:

> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
> and Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts
[snip]

I do use an OLD version of Norton AV (nothing else Norton at this time) on
my laptop. I think it's the 2002 version, maybe the 2003. I won't upgrade
the software, but I keep up on the update license. I'm okay with the older
version, but the newer ones do seem to be bloatware. But at work, some of
the PCs are so old, I wouldn't dare put anything Norton on them. Heck, some
are Pentium 133s running W98. Not enough RAM to install Norton, much less
run it <g>. The corporate version of McAfee still included v4.51 for the W9x
systems, and they do update the 'engine' as well as the DATs when needed, so
it can still handle newer types of malware. I believe the latest version of
McAfee even included some form of anti -pam software, although it doesn't
run on my mail server (Groupwise).

"Tom" <> wrote in message
news:Xns96185F873E87Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.9 0...
> Thanks. I'm currently running Norton Corporate, but my confidence in
> anything "Norton" is not entirely solid. I'll take a look McAfee to see
> what they have that's W2k3 Server compatible.
>
>
>
> "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in
> news:rbMYd.4884$:
>
>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
>> and Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts
> [snip]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> "Tom" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> Tom
>
> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as far
> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for McAfee
> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so for
> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>
> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...

I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
maintain centrally.
--
jda^fx

"jda^fx" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>
>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>>
>>> Many thanks.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
>> far
>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
>> McAfee
>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
>> for
>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>>
>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
>
> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
> maintain centrally.

Well, that sounds good then.

I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve), but
the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
problems with restoring files from one server to a different one). Besides,
it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that. And
the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes my
server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much more
frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive, but
they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to a
different software package.

McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem at
all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>
>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
>>> far
>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
>>> McAfee
>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
>>> for
>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>>>
>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
>>
>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
>> maintain centrally.
>
> Well, that sounds good then.
>
> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve), but
> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one). Besides,
> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that. And
> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes my
> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much more
> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive, but
> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to a
> different software package.
>
> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem at
> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.

We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
..msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
..exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
programes in a windows server environment
--
jda^fx

"jda^fx" <> wrote in message
news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$....
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>
>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>>
>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
>>>> far
>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
>>>> Border
>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
>>>> McAfee
>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
>>>> for
>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>>>>
>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
>>>> backup
>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
>>>
>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
>>> maintain centrally.
>>
>> Well, that sounds good then.
>>
>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
>> but
>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
>> Besides,
>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
>> And
>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes
>> my
>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
>> more
>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive,
>> but
>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to
>> a
>> different software package.
>>
>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem
>> at
>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
>
> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
> programes in a windows server environment

Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on XP.
I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
their installation creation software to customize my install package (dang,
I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update DATs
folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think that
was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.

For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the server
software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run the
timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So the
McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has the
McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems with
pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
instead of Windows Networking.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
> news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$....
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>
>>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
>>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
>>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
>>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
>>>>> far
>>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
>>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
>>>>> Border
>>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
>>>>> McAfee
>>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
>>>>> for
>>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>>>>>
>>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
>>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
>>>>> backup
>>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
>>>>
>>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
>>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
>>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
>>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
>>>> maintain centrally.
>>>
>>> Well, that sounds good then.
>>>
>>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
>>> but
>>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
>>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
>>> Besides,
>>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
>>> And
>>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes
>>> my
>>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
>>> more
>>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive,
>>> but
>>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
>>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to
>>> a
>>> different software package.
>>>
>>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
>>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem
>>> at
>>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
>>
>> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
>> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
>> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
>> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
>> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
>> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
>> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
>> programes in a windows server environment
>
> Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on XP.
> I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
> their installation creation software to customize my install package (dang,
> I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
> functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update DATs
> folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
> workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
> some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think that
> was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.
>
> For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the server
> software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
> program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run the
> timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So the
> McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has the
> McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems with
> pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
> instead of Windows Networking.

We are still running the vers. 7 and I am not going to deploy vers. 8
fullscale until I find out were that error comes from. The deployment
is going to be made via w2003 AD. The installation software is called
installation something, I can't remeber, but you can download it if
you log in with your grant #. The most tricky part we have is that we
still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
--
jda^fx

"jda^fx" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>
>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
>> news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$....
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>>
>>>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
>>>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128. 86...
>>>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
>>>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
>>>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have
>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> far
>>>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
>>>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
>>>>>> Border
>>>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
>>>>>> McAfee
>>>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included,
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
>>>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
>>>>>> backup
>>>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
>>>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
>>>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
>>>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
>>>>> maintain centrally.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that sounds good then.
>>>>
>>>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
>>>> but
>>>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I
>>>> have
>>>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
>>>> Besides,
>>>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
>>>> And
>>>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that
>>>> causes
>>>> my
>>>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
>>>> more
>>>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly
>>>> responsive,
>>>> but
>>>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or
>>>> 6
>>>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched
>>>> to
>>>> a
>>>> different software package.
>>>>
>>>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
>>>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a
>>>> problem
>>>> at
>>>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
>>>
>>> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
>>> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
>>> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
>>> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
>>> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
>>> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
>>> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
>>> programes in a windows server environment
>>
>> Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on
>> XP.
>> I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
>> their installation creation software to customize my install package
>> (dang,
>> I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
>> functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update
>> DATs
>> folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
>> workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
>> some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think
>> that
>> was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.
>>
>> For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the
>> server
>> software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
>> program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run
>> the
>> timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So
>> the
>> McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has
>> the
>> McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems
>> with
>> pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
>> instead of Windows Networking.
>
> We are still running the vers. 7 and I am not going to deploy vers. 8
> fullscale until I find out were that error comes from. The deployment
> is going to be made via w2003 AD. The installation software is called
> installation something, I can't remeber, but you can download it if
> you log in with your grant #. The most tricky part we have is that we
> still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
> means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
>
Yup - we're in the same boat. But late this year I think all the W98
workstations are going buh-bye <g>! The boss only lets me replace 5 or 6
systems a year. Now I have about 8 to 10 computers in storage I need to
clean and dump. (Never ends, does it?)