What is the best Antivirus for a Windows Domain Network?
Asked
Active
Viewed 5,194 times
5
-
To clarify, do you mean you want a windows server to check client computers over the network? – Pure.Krome May 27 '09 at 06:08
-
Yes, I need to install a manage antivirus clients from a centralized location. – SZayat May 27 '09 at 06:11
-
1The one that stops the viruses. – ceejayoz Dec 30 '11 at 17:43
-
Off topic per the FAQ. We are NOT about, "Product or service recommendations." – sysadmin1138 Dec 30 '11 at 17:54
-
What exactly is wrong with "Microsoft Security Essentials" ? – djangofan Dec 30 '11 at 17:34
8 Answers
9
For us it came down to Symantec Endpoint Protection and ESET Nod32/Smart Security. Both have excellent central management features, and both score well on detection rates and not sucking up system resources. We went with ESET based on a bad experience with the trialware of Symantec while evaluating both. ESET was cheaper, as a bonus. Goes to show you it's good to try before you buy, which you can do with most business class AV suites.
nedm
- 5,630
- 5
- 32
- 52
-
In fact, even unistalling Symantec from the machines we installed for the trial was a nightmare. Liveupdate in particular doesn't like to leave once it has its hooks in. – nedm May 27 '09 at 06:20
3
I will vote for ESET solutions.
It is cheap, and would not consume resources, and also powerfull, I did not have any problem with it in past years.
mhmd
- 131
- 2
1
If the question is "What Antivirus works well with windows domains to have policies and updates managed?" then I'd suggest looking for security suites that will:
- Ability for Group Policy to manage application settings
- Central management for being able to push updates to clients and servers on the network
- Ability to restrict access to settings and passwords to administrators
One example of a product that can do all these things is McAfee's security suite (VirusScan, ePO etc.)
kdmurray
- 549
- 3
- 8
- 19
-
There is a risk in forcing poor users to use deadly slow and resource-consuming McAfee. Some of them may be killers... Now seriously, it's really horrible. – ya23 Jun 19 '09 at 23:36
-
We've been using it in my company for some time. It's not pretty, I grant you, but on over-powered, under-utilized desktop hardware it has done the job well enough. – kdmurray Jun 20 '09 at 06:23
1
And I will vote FSecure. Provides good features among which are remote installation which I like to use.
1
Like Kaspersky AV for workstation and server for MS servers. Very nice Kaspersky Administation Toolkit.
ezotrank
- 111
- 1
1
I vote with ESET. Have used it before it became popular. Very small footprint. Easily removed. Renewal is simpler than Trend, and that's saying a lot.
Symantec Endpoint has become very non-intrusive, low profile, and their footprint is now a reasonable size (much smaller). But trying to completely remove it is still a nightmare.
Michael
- 151
- 3
1
I'm currently working with Sophos - does a really good job and the fact that you can add Network Access Controls in it can be very useful. When we eval'ed several Antivirus Sophos was the only one light enough to work with our complicated software (before I can to work here).
Long time ago I was a big fan of Panda - great install, light and seemless integration in the network. However, I haven't played with it in a few years. It may be worth cheking it out again (my current job did NOT eval Panda unfortunately).
pirhac
- 133
- 3
-
I love Sophos on the client side but the central server is dreadful. Specifically, upgrading from one version to the next is far from a seamless process. – Chris Thorpe Nov 06 '10 at 03:52
