<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_2126231</id>
	<title>Central Anti-Virus For Small Business?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245174720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://rduke15atgmaildotcom/" rel="nofollow">rduke15</a> writes <i>"I'm trying to find a centrally managed anti-virus solution for a small business network, which has around 20 Windows XP machines with a Linux server. It is too big to manage each client manually. However, there is no no full-time IT person on site, and no Windows Active Directory server &mdash; just Linux with Samba. And the current solution with <a href="http://www.symantec.com/business/endpoint-protection">Symantec Endpoint Protection</a> seems too expensive, and too complex for such a simple need. On the Linux server side, email is handled by <a href="http://www.amavis.org/">amavisd</a> and <a href="http://www.clamav.net/">ClamAV</a>. But the WinXP clients still need a real-time anti-virus for the USB disks they may bring to work, or stuff they download from their personal webmail or other sites. I'm wondering what others may be using in similar situations, and how satisfied they are with it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rduke15 writes " I 'm trying to find a centrally managed anti-virus solution for a small business network , which has around 20 Windows XP machines with a Linux server .
It is too big to manage each client manually .
However , there is no no full-time IT person on site , and no Windows Active Directory server    just Linux with Samba .
And the current solution with Symantec Endpoint Protection seems too expensive , and too complex for such a simple need .
On the Linux server side , email is handled by amavisd and ClamAV .
But the WinXP clients still need a real-time anti-virus for the USB disks they may bring to work , or stuff they download from their personal webmail or other sites .
I 'm wondering what others may be using in similar situations , and how satisfied they are with it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rduke15 writes "I'm trying to find a centrally managed anti-virus solution for a small business network, which has around 20 Windows XP machines with a Linux server.
It is too big to manage each client manually.
However, there is no no full-time IT person on site, and no Windows Active Directory server — just Linux with Samba.
And the current solution with Symantec Endpoint Protection seems too expensive, and too complex for such a simple need.
On the Linux server side, email is handled by amavisd and ClamAV.
But the WinXP clients still need a real-time anti-virus for the USB disks they may bring to work, or stuff they download from their personal webmail or other sites.
I'm wondering what others may be using in similar situations, and how satisfied they are with it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358799</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>briggsl</author>
	<datestamp>1245229620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use Sophos at the school I admin with the enterprise console. It is by no means the greatest antivirus out there, but it does the job. It doesn't intrude on the user, updates itself quietly and efficiently and you can manage clients well using the enterprise console. I believe its fairly reasonably priced, but we get a discount being educational (they sell heavily to schools)
</p><p>
Just make sure you only get the endpoint AV and not the bundled firewall - that really sucks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use Sophos at the school I admin with the enterprise console .
It is by no means the greatest antivirus out there , but it does the job .
It does n't intrude on the user , updates itself quietly and efficiently and you can manage clients well using the enterprise console .
I believe its fairly reasonably priced , but we get a discount being educational ( they sell heavily to schools ) Just make sure you only get the endpoint AV and not the bundled firewall - that really sucks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use Sophos at the school I admin with the enterprise console.
It is by no means the greatest antivirus out there, but it does the job.
It doesn't intrude on the user, updates itself quietly and efficiently and you can manage clients well using the enterprise console.
I believe its fairly reasonably priced, but we get a discount being educational (they sell heavily to schools)

Just make sure you only get the endpoint AV and not the bundled firewall - that really sucks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358807</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1245229680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?</i>
</p><p>Throwaway VMWare machines and brutally restrictive firewalling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done ?
Throwaway VMWare machines and brutally restrictive firewalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?
Throwaway VMWare machines and brutally restrictive firewalling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359597</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1245240420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People do that sort of crap and you can either have a pointless HR policy to point the finger at them after they do it or just assume that they will and plan accordingly.  The new guy will forget the annoying lecture and plug his phone/mp3 player/usb vibrator into any socket that looks like it will recharge it without caring.  We wanted a generation that was comfortable with new technology and we got one that is incredibly casual about it, so we need to assume that most security policies are going to be ignored if there are no locked doors, sealed ports or other obvious barriers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People do that sort of crap and you can either have a pointless HR policy to point the finger at them after they do it or just assume that they will and plan accordingly .
The new guy will forget the annoying lecture and plug his phone/mp3 player/usb vibrator into any socket that looks like it will recharge it without caring .
We wanted a generation that was comfortable with new technology and we got one that is incredibly casual about it , so we need to assume that most security policies are going to be ignored if there are no locked doors , sealed ports or other obvious barriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People do that sort of crap and you can either have a pointless HR policy to point the finger at them after they do it or just assume that they will and plan accordingly.
The new guy will forget the annoying lecture and plug his phone/mp3 player/usb vibrator into any socket that looks like it will recharge it without caring.
We wanted a generation that was comfortable with new technology and we got one that is incredibly casual about it, so we need to assume that most security policies are going to be ignored if there are no locked doors, sealed ports or other obvious barriers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360351</id>
	<title>robocopy?</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1245247020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just configure things locally as if standalone, and use robocopy to sync the latest signatures and software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just configure things locally as if standalone , and use robocopy to sync the latest signatures and software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just configure things locally as if standalone, and use robocopy to sync the latest signatures and software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360883</id>
	<title>Before you make any decision...</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1245250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before you make any decision, take some time to sit down with the president of the company, the management committee, or other head honchos to find out what their outlook is for the next few years.  Yes, even with the economy down there are some companies that are planning to grow.  The place I'm at now sits at about 100 employees today, but was just at 35 employees five years ago (with most of those being shop employees).  We went from about 15 PCs (and two servers) to an environment with about 60 PCs (and five servers).  I came on-board a little over a year ago, and have been dealing with an IT environment that did not anticipate the growth.  My advice to you: do whatever you can now to make your job (or your successor's job) easier five years down the road.  It is much easier to get things in place now, before you are dealing with rampant growth.<br> <br>We just opted for Symantec's Endpoint Protection after considering numerous options.  Yes, the price tag seems significant, but the management tools work well (the deployment package creator alone saved me much time).  For us, a significant factor was to select an AV tool that plays nice with some of our 3D design tools.  Be sure to check with your power users regarding their software, and make sure whatever you select will play nice with your critical business apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you make any decision , take some time to sit down with the president of the company , the management committee , or other head honchos to find out what their outlook is for the next few years .
Yes , even with the economy down there are some companies that are planning to grow .
The place I 'm at now sits at about 100 employees today , but was just at 35 employees five years ago ( with most of those being shop employees ) .
We went from about 15 PCs ( and two servers ) to an environment with about 60 PCs ( and five servers ) .
I came on-board a little over a year ago , and have been dealing with an IT environment that did not anticipate the growth .
My advice to you : do whatever you can now to make your job ( or your successor 's job ) easier five years down the road .
It is much easier to get things in place now , before you are dealing with rampant growth .
We just opted for Symantec 's Endpoint Protection after considering numerous options .
Yes , the price tag seems significant , but the management tools work well ( the deployment package creator alone saved me much time ) .
For us , a significant factor was to select an AV tool that plays nice with some of our 3D design tools .
Be sure to check with your power users regarding their software , and make sure whatever you select will play nice with your critical business apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you make any decision, take some time to sit down with the president of the company, the management committee, or other head honchos to find out what their outlook is for the next few years.
Yes, even with the economy down there are some companies that are planning to grow.
The place I'm at now sits at about 100 employees today, but was just at 35 employees five years ago (with most of those being shop employees).
We went from about 15 PCs (and two servers) to an environment with about 60 PCs (and five servers).
I came on-board a little over a year ago, and have been dealing with an IT environment that did not anticipate the growth.
My advice to you: do whatever you can now to make your job (or your successor's job) easier five years down the road.
It is much easier to get things in place now, before you are dealing with rampant growth.
We just opted for Symantec's Endpoint Protection after considering numerous options.
Yes, the price tag seems significant, but the management tools work well (the deployment package creator alone saved me much time).
For us, a significant factor was to select an AV tool that plays nice with some of our 3D design tools.
Be sure to check with your power users regarding their software, and make sure whatever you select will play nice with your critical business apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359435</id>
	<title>try trend micro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://us.trendmicro.com/us/products/sb/index.html</p><p>Trend micro has a management server and linux clients, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //us.trendmicro.com/us/products/sb/index.htmlTrend micro has a management server and linux clients , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://us.trendmicro.com/us/products/sb/index.htmlTrend micro has a management server and linux clients, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28363305</id>
	<title>TrendMicro</title>
	<author>kylejhunt</author>
	<datestamp>1245262320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have 40+ workstations and 15+ servers and we use TrendMicro.  We're a Microsoft shop so I'm not sure if it will work on your Linux box, but it's the ONLY AV that I've been happy w/ for any length of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 40 + workstations and 15 + servers and we use TrendMicro .
We 're a Microsoft shop so I 'm not sure if it will work on your Linux box , but it 's the ONLY AV that I 've been happy w/ for any length of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 40+ workstations and 15+ servers and we use TrendMicro.
We're a Microsoft shop so I'm not sure if it will work on your Linux box, but it's the ONLY AV that I've been happy w/ for any length of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359491</id>
	<title>NOD32</title>
	<author>nobler55</author>
	<datestamp>1245238860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a small IT department (15 box's in total with 3 servers).

I find that NOD32 is a decent solution,  its cheap and it has a management studio that lets you run scan and update remotely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a small IT department ( 15 box 's in total with 3 servers ) .
I find that NOD32 is a decent solution , its cheap and it has a management studio that lets you run scan and update remotely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a small IT department (15 box's in total with 3 servers).
I find that NOD32 is a decent solution,  its cheap and it has a management studio that lets you run scan and update remotely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358489</id>
	<title>Rethink your IT solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You said you don't have full time IT.  Maybe you should re-think that since you are asking this question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You said you do n't have full time IT .
Maybe you should re-think that since you are asking this question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said you don't have full time IT.
Maybe you should re-think that since you are asking this question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360217</id>
	<title>Trend Micro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trend Micro Office Scan</p><p>Inexpensive and very effective. Works for desktops,laptops, remote users, in house users, linux and windows.</p><p>Has a centrelly managed web dashboard interface and very, very good stuff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trend Micro Office ScanInexpensive and very effective .
Works for desktops,laptops , remote users , in house users , linux and windows.Has a centrelly managed web dashboard interface and very , very good stuff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trend Micro Office ScanInexpensive and very effective.
Works for desktops,laptops, remote users, in house users, linux and windows.Has a centrelly managed web dashboard interface and very, very good stuff</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358737</id>
	<title>Re:Ill tell you what *not* to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded - I'd go as far as to say Panda is as much, if not more, of a resource hog than Norton.<br>Painfully slow, although the central management console was ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded - I 'd go as far as to say Panda is as much , if not more , of a resource hog than Norton.Painfully slow , although the central management console was ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded - I'd go as far as to say Panda is as much, if not more, of a resource hog than Norton.Painfully slow, although the central management console was ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358475</id>
	<title>Re:ClamWin</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1245269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.moonsecure.com/" title="moonsecure.com">Moonsecure</a> [moonsecure.com] is an AV based on clamwin: it actually employs a real-time scanner. clamwin offers no active protection, so it is pretty much useless for most user scenarios.<br> <br>In all honesty, I've given both Moonsecure and clamwin many chances over the past couple of years. I don't want to admit it, but I feel as though I've been largely disappointed with the detection rates, the interface and the speed of both AVs. I've used them mostly in a 'workbench' setting though, scanning client drives outside of the system. In comparison to the other (commercial) scanners I use regularly, I've not been impressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moonsecure [ moonsecure.com ] is an AV based on clamwin : it actually employs a real-time scanner .
clamwin offers no active protection , so it is pretty much useless for most user scenarios .
In all honesty , I 've given both Moonsecure and clamwin many chances over the past couple of years .
I do n't want to admit it , but I feel as though I 've been largely disappointed with the detection rates , the interface and the speed of both AVs .
I 've used them mostly in a 'workbench ' setting though , scanning client drives outside of the system .
In comparison to the other ( commercial ) scanners I use regularly , I 've not been impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moonsecure [moonsecure.com] is an AV based on clamwin: it actually employs a real-time scanner.
clamwin offers no active protection, so it is pretty much useless for most user scenarios.
In all honesty, I've given both Moonsecure and clamwin many chances over the past couple of years.
I don't want to admit it, but I feel as though I've been largely disappointed with the detection rates, the interface and the speed of both AVs.
I've used them mostly in a 'workbench' setting though, scanning client drives outside of the system.
In comparison to the other (commercial) scanners I use regularly, I've not been impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360203</id>
	<title>I'm a Unix Engineer, but best tool for the  job</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1245246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Unix engineer who happens to handle a small office also.  I cannot stress enough about the right tool for the job.  If you have a bunch of Windows workstations and need Anti-Virus, go Symantec End Point Protection or the older Symantec Corporate 10.x.   You get the Symantec server with it.  You are basically just paying for the licenses for each desktop.  Our Windows domain controller is a VMWare VM that runs on our Linux server.  Backups are simply.  At night, it shutdown and rsyncs to a different server then restarts.  Windows file sharing (and even Linux develop's use it) is done with the Windows VM.   Simple management of centralized authentication, file sharing and Anti-virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Unix engineer who happens to handle a small office also .
I can not stress enough about the right tool for the job .
If you have a bunch of Windows workstations and need Anti-Virus , go Symantec End Point Protection or the older Symantec Corporate 10.x .
You get the Symantec server with it .
You are basically just paying for the licenses for each desktop .
Our Windows domain controller is a VMWare VM that runs on our Linux server .
Backups are simply .
At night , it shutdown and rsyncs to a different server then restarts .
Windows file sharing ( and even Linux develop 's use it ) is done with the Windows VM .
Simple management of centralized authentication , file sharing and Anti-virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Unix engineer who happens to handle a small office also.
I cannot stress enough about the right tool for the job.
If you have a bunch of Windows workstations and need Anti-Virus, go Symantec End Point Protection or the older Symantec Corporate 10.x.
You get the Symantec server with it.
You are basically just paying for the licenses for each desktop.
Our Windows domain controller is a VMWare VM that runs on our Linux server.
Backups are simply.
At night, it shutdown and rsyncs to a different server then restarts.
Windows file sharing (and even Linux develop's use it) is done with the Windows VM.
Simple management of centralized authentication, file sharing and Anti-virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.</p></div><p>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random , you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362705</id>
	<title>AV is DEAD!  Long Live Whitelisting!</title>
	<author>Farmer Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1245259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so you are in a unique situation.  You've got no investment yet, and a small number of machines to manage.  Why use antiquated software that at best will detect non zero day viruses and almost no malware (seriously, does any AV vendor find a significant amount of malware???).  The solution is to switch from a blacklisting approach, and move to a white list approach.  Instead of using a piece of software to look for bad stuff, just tell your computer what good stuff can be run.  There are a ton of vendors that sell white listing apps.  I don't know if there is one that is scaled for your size.  Lumension has a decent product, as does core trace.  Those may be overkill.  Faronics has a simpler solution that may be worth looking at.  I'm sure there are dozens more out there, but those are just the ones I've looked at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so you are in a unique situation .
You 've got no investment yet , and a small number of machines to manage .
Why use antiquated software that at best will detect non zero day viruses and almost no malware ( seriously , does any AV vendor find a significant amount of malware ? ? ? ) .
The solution is to switch from a blacklisting approach , and move to a white list approach .
Instead of using a piece of software to look for bad stuff , just tell your computer what good stuff can be run .
There are a ton of vendors that sell white listing apps .
I do n't know if there is one that is scaled for your size .
Lumension has a decent product , as does core trace .
Those may be overkill .
Faronics has a simpler solution that may be worth looking at .
I 'm sure there are dozens more out there , but those are just the ones I 've looked at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so you are in a unique situation.
You've got no investment yet, and a small number of machines to manage.
Why use antiquated software that at best will detect non zero day viruses and almost no malware (seriously, does any AV vendor find a significant amount of malware???).
The solution is to switch from a blacklisting approach, and move to a white list approach.
Instead of using a piece of software to look for bad stuff, just tell your computer what good stuff can be run.
There are a ton of vendors that sell white listing apps.
I don't know if there is one that is scaled for your size.
Lumension has a decent product, as does core trace.
Those may be overkill.
Faronics has a simpler solution that may be worth looking at.
I'm sure there are dozens more out there, but those are just the ones I've looked at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368757</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about other people, but around where I work, the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed, it also has tons of viruses installed. Nod32 never seems to work in real life, eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations.</p><p>(We use avira.)</p></div><p>You are an R-Tard.  We've used Symantec, PC-Cillin and McAfee over the years covering over 320 PCs and servers.  Our change-over to NOD32 recently has been a GODSEND!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about other people , but around where I work , the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed , it also has tons of viruses installed .
Nod32 never seems to work in real life , eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations .
( We use avira .
) You are an R-Tard .
We 've used Symantec , PC-Cillin and McAfee over the years covering over 320 PCs and servers .
Our change-over to NOD32 recently has been a GODSEND !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about other people, but around where I work, the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed, it also has tons of viruses installed.
Nod32 never seems to work in real life, eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations.
(We use avira.
)You are an R-Tard.
We've used Symantec, PC-Cillin and McAfee over the years covering over 320 PCs and servers.
Our change-over to NOD32 recently has been a GODSEND!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361797</id>
	<title>Best anti-virus: User awareness</title>
	<author>Lazypete</author>
	<datestamp>1245255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no 1 good answer to which produc you should use, yeah I use Symantec Corporate, its light weight, fast and it updates like a charm. But the best anti-virus still is the fact that you must not get one in the first place. So user awarness and give them a class on best practices. Im sure you can meet everyone at your compagny and tell them that the best thing is to always be suspicious on the internet. Dont trust emails, NEVER, even if you know the person, double check if you have any little doubts. But for the AV solution well I dont have suggestion beside the "dont": Dont use AVG it sucks bad.. dont use Panda (if it even exist anymore) its the worst, its even harder to remove than a virus itself. I heard good thing about Nod32 but never used it. I like Symantec but i guess its not cheap</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no 1 good answer to which produc you should use , yeah I use Symantec Corporate , its light weight , fast and it updates like a charm .
But the best anti-virus still is the fact that you must not get one in the first place .
So user awarness and give them a class on best practices .
Im sure you can meet everyone at your compagny and tell them that the best thing is to always be suspicious on the internet .
Dont trust emails , NEVER , even if you know the person , double check if you have any little doubts .
But for the AV solution well I dont have suggestion beside the " dont " : Dont use AVG it sucks bad.. dont use Panda ( if it even exist anymore ) its the worst , its even harder to remove than a virus itself .
I heard good thing about Nod32 but never used it .
I like Symantec but i guess its not cheap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no 1 good answer to which produc you should use, yeah I use Symantec Corporate, its light weight, fast and it updates like a charm.
But the best anti-virus still is the fact that you must not get one in the first place.
So user awarness and give them a class on best practices.
Im sure you can meet everyone at your compagny and tell them that the best thing is to always be suspicious on the internet.
Dont trust emails, NEVER, even if you know the person, double check if you have any little doubts.
But for the AV solution well I dont have suggestion beside the "dont": Dont use AVG it sucks bad.. dont use Panda (if it even exist anymore) its the worst, its even harder to remove than a virus itself.
I heard good thing about Nod32 but never used it.
I like Symantec but i guess its not cheap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358585</id>
	<title>Re:the obvious solution.. on /.</title>
	<author>bryhhh</author>
	<datestamp>1245270240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm assuming from your post that you aren't running AV? That's how I read it anyway, as you don't include an AV solution (which is what this post is all about)
<br> <br>
Security Lesson #1: Usability, Secure, Cheap - pick any two.
<br> <br>
Anyone can put up a solution that provides two of these, however I think the solution you have put together provides only one.... Cheap!
<br> <br>
Working from a VM? Not usable - at least not for typical office workers.
No AV protection? Insecure
<br> <br>
Allow me to elaborate on insecure...
<br> <br>
Fair enough, you 'reset' your virtual machines when shit happens, but what about when a virus sends out spam from one of your IPs and gets your blacklisted? What about when a virus/trojan/whatever leaks confidential business information? and how do you know if things get nasty if you aren't running AV?
<br> <br>
The viruses you need to worry about, are the ones you probably wouldn't detect without AV protection, as these are the ones most likely to do your business harm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming from your post that you are n't running AV ?
That 's how I read it anyway , as you do n't include an AV solution ( which is what this post is all about ) Security Lesson # 1 : Usability , Secure , Cheap - pick any two .
Anyone can put up a solution that provides two of these , however I think the solution you have put together provides only one.... Cheap ! Working from a VM ?
Not usable - at least not for typical office workers .
No AV protection ?
Insecure Allow me to elaborate on insecure.. . Fair enough , you 'reset ' your virtual machines when shit happens , but what about when a virus sends out spam from one of your IPs and gets your blacklisted ?
What about when a virus/trojan/whatever leaks confidential business information ?
and how do you know if things get nasty if you are n't running AV ?
The viruses you need to worry about , are the ones you probably would n't detect without AV protection , as these are the ones most likely to do your business harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming from your post that you aren't running AV?
That's how I read it anyway, as you don't include an AV solution (which is what this post is all about)
 
Security Lesson #1: Usability, Secure, Cheap - pick any two.
Anyone can put up a solution that provides two of these, however I think the solution you have put together provides only one.... Cheap!
 
Working from a VM?
Not usable - at least not for typical office workers.
No AV protection?
Insecure
 
Allow me to elaborate on insecure...
 
Fair enough, you 'reset' your virtual machines when shit happens, but what about when a virus sends out spam from one of your IPs and gets your blacklisted?
What about when a virus/trojan/whatever leaks confidential business information?
and how do you know if things get nasty if you aren't running AV?
The viruses you need to worry about, are the ones you probably wouldn't detect without AV protection, as these are the ones most likely to do your business harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359793</id>
	<title>Unorthodox solution</title>
	<author>955301</author>
	<datestamp>1245242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With twenty machines, I'm going to go out on a limb and say don't! You have a large enough user base that you should use a hard disk image backup system, yet a small enough base that the infections would be manageable. Since your primary server isn't windows you may want to set up your network so each user workstation cannot connect to the others, then let them be on their way. The CPU usage of constant disk scanning is a drag on the user's machine. Weighed 20 of them versus the time for you to recreate an image of a particular users disk then swap them out. Besides, if one particular user is a problem it will play out as negative reinforcement for whatever they are doing to get infected.<br>My reasoning is that users often disable the scan anyway, so you would be trying to combat that behavior by tweaking the application/system security policies. Don't waste your time, if they get infected waste theirs. They won't do it again....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With twenty machines , I 'm going to go out on a limb and say do n't !
You have a large enough user base that you should use a hard disk image backup system , yet a small enough base that the infections would be manageable .
Since your primary server is n't windows you may want to set up your network so each user workstation can not connect to the others , then let them be on their way .
The CPU usage of constant disk scanning is a drag on the user 's machine .
Weighed 20 of them versus the time for you to recreate an image of a particular users disk then swap them out .
Besides , if one particular user is a problem it will play out as negative reinforcement for whatever they are doing to get infected.My reasoning is that users often disable the scan anyway , so you would be trying to combat that behavior by tweaking the application/system security policies .
Do n't waste your time , if they get infected waste theirs .
They wo n't do it again... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With twenty machines, I'm going to go out on a limb and say don't!
You have a large enough user base that you should use a hard disk image backup system, yet a small enough base that the infections would be manageable.
Since your primary server isn't windows you may want to set up your network so each user workstation cannot connect to the others, then let them be on their way.
The CPU usage of constant disk scanning is a drag on the user's machine.
Weighed 20 of them versus the time for you to recreate an image of a particular users disk then swap them out.
Besides, if one particular user is a problem it will play out as negative reinforcement for whatever they are doing to get infected.My reasoning is that users often disable the scan anyway, so you would be trying to combat that behavior by tweaking the application/system security policies.
Don't waste your time, if they get infected waste theirs.
They won't do it again....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358663</id>
	<title>Re:NOD32 Antivirus and NOS32 Remote Administrator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nod32 here as well. The remote admin works but the workstations pretty much look after themselves.</p><p>Licensing is more cost effective than norton or mcafee, as nod32 does malware as well as av without a seperate client.<br>Word of warning though. nothing is perfect at malware so don't shoot it down if it misses some. The AV engine however is excellent.</p><p>Last thought (and I have nothing to do with eset i just use it) If you are currently a Norton place the users will see a speed increase on there machines as the nod client is one of the least invasive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nod32 here as well .
The remote admin works but the workstations pretty much look after themselves.Licensing is more cost effective than norton or mcafee , as nod32 does malware as well as av without a seperate client.Word of warning though .
nothing is perfect at malware so do n't shoot it down if it misses some .
The AV engine however is excellent.Last thought ( and I have nothing to do with eset i just use it ) If you are currently a Norton place the users will see a speed increase on there machines as the nod client is one of the least invasive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nod32 here as well.
The remote admin works but the workstations pretty much look after themselves.Licensing is more cost effective than norton or mcafee, as nod32 does malware as well as av without a seperate client.Word of warning though.
nothing is perfect at malware so don't shoot it down if it misses some.
The AV engine however is excellent.Last thought (and I have nothing to do with eset i just use it) If you are currently a Norton place the users will see a speed increase on there machines as the nod client is one of the least invasive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155</id>
	<title>Kaspersky - Support for Windows &amp; Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security is comprised of components for the protection of Linux and Windows workstations, file servers and mail systems.<br>
<br>
Samba File Servers are also fully supported!<br>
<br>
More Information -- <a href="http://usa.kaspersky.com/products\_services/business/open\_space\_enterprise.php" title="kaspersky.com" rel="nofollow">http://usa.kaspersky.com/products\_services/business/open\_space\_enterprise.php</a> [kaspersky.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security is comprised of components for the protection of Linux and Windows workstations , file servers and mail systems .
Samba File Servers are also fully supported !
More Information -- http : //usa.kaspersky.com/products \ _services/business/open \ _space \ _enterprise.php [ kaspersky.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security is comprised of components for the protection of Linux and Windows workstations, file servers and mail systems.
Samba File Servers are also fully supported!
More Information -- http://usa.kaspersky.com/products\_services/business/open\_space\_enterprise.php [kaspersky.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359635</id>
	<title>Re:Ill tell you what *not* to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>These days no antivirus is really very good, I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology. The malware writers are just taking the piss, and Windows can never be virus free.</i> <br>
<br>
If no antivirus is really very good, then why is it that only Windows can never be virus free?  Why does the same not apply to Linux, Unix, OSX, or whatever?  I understand that they have truly miniscule marketshare by comparison and that accounts for their relatively low number of virii.  But I think you would be a fool to believe that they are inherently more secure simply by virtue of being more obscure, or to believe that if one of them had 95\% market share that there wouldn't be a thriving virus industry targeting those operating systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days no antivirus is really very good , I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology .
The malware writers are just taking the piss , and Windows can never be virus free .
If no antivirus is really very good , then why is it that only Windows can never be virus free ?
Why does the same not apply to Linux , Unix , OSX , or whatever ?
I understand that they have truly miniscule marketshare by comparison and that accounts for their relatively low number of virii .
But I think you would be a fool to believe that they are inherently more secure simply by virtue of being more obscure , or to believe that if one of them had 95 \ % market share that there would n't be a thriving virus industry targeting those operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days no antivirus is really very good, I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology.
The malware writers are just taking the piss, and Windows can never be virus free.
If no antivirus is really very good, then why is it that only Windows can never be virus free?
Why does the same not apply to Linux, Unix, OSX, or whatever?
I understand that they have truly miniscule marketshare by comparison and that accounts for their relatively low number of virii.
But I think you would be a fool to believe that they are inherently more secure simply by virtue of being more obscure, or to believe that if one of them had 95\% market share that there wouldn't be a thriving virus industry targeting those operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28366603</id>
	<title>Re:Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sophos are a British company. Their main website is <a href="http://www.sophos.com/" title="sophos.com" rel="nofollow">www.sophos.com</a> [sophos.com]. Thier Enterprise Suite will do what you want, but the central tools rely on Windows Server. Sophos is a very solid performer, and they consistently get good ratings in the IT press. The latest versions are (in my opinion) a little bloated, and updates can take a little while to get installed on the clients (during which time there is a lot of disc activity). However, the cenralised distribution of the updates and definitions means that you only have to get them once down your DSL (or whatever) and the server will distribute the updates to the clients. Once up and running Sophos pretty much takes care of itself. Here in the UK, Sophos will cost approx. &#194;&pound;40 per seat per year if you get a three-year pack.  There are a number of resellers; the one I use is Caretower <a href="http://www.caretower.com/" title="caretower.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.caretower.com/</a> [caretower.com]. Last time we renewed, buyin through a reseller was cheaper than going direct. Go figure!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sophos are a British company .
Their main website is www.sophos.com [ sophos.com ] .
Thier Enterprise Suite will do what you want , but the central tools rely on Windows Server .
Sophos is a very solid performer , and they consistently get good ratings in the IT press .
The latest versions are ( in my opinion ) a little bloated , and updates can take a little while to get installed on the clients ( during which time there is a lot of disc activity ) .
However , the cenralised distribution of the updates and definitions means that you only have to get them once down your DSL ( or whatever ) and the server will distribute the updates to the clients .
Once up and running Sophos pretty much takes care of itself .
Here in the UK , Sophos will cost approx .
    40 per seat per year if you get a three-year pack .
There are a number of resellers ; the one I use is Caretower http : //www.caretower.com/ [ caretower.com ] .
Last time we renewed , buyin through a reseller was cheaper than going direct .
Go figure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sophos are a British company.
Their main website is www.sophos.com [sophos.com].
Thier Enterprise Suite will do what you want, but the central tools rely on Windows Server.
Sophos is a very solid performer, and they consistently get good ratings in the IT press.
The latest versions are (in my opinion) a little bloated, and updates can take a little while to get installed on the clients (during which time there is a lot of disc activity).
However, the cenralised distribution of the updates and definitions means that you only have to get them once down your DSL (or whatever) and the server will distribute the updates to the clients.
Once up and running Sophos pretty much takes care of itself.
Here in the UK, Sophos will cost approx.
Â£40 per seat per year if you get a three-year pack.
There are a number of resellers; the one I use is Caretower http://www.caretower.com/ [caretower.com].
Last time we renewed, buyin through a reseller was cheaper than going direct.
Go figure!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360337</id>
	<title>Re:Kaspersky - Support for Windows &amp; Linux</title>
	<author>swb311</author>
	<datestamp>1245246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've been using the Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security suite for around 3 months and I'm very impressed.  It's much better than the McAfee total protection plus we were using originally, and functions flawlessly with Windows workstations, Windows servers, terminal servers, linux servers, mobile devices, etc.

However it's exchange anti-spam product sucks.  balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been using the Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security suite for around 3 months and I 'm very impressed .
It 's much better than the McAfee total protection plus we were using originally , and functions flawlessly with Windows workstations , Windows servers , terminal servers , linux servers , mobile devices , etc .
However it 's exchange anti-spam product sucks .
balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been using the Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security suite for around 3 months and I'm very impressed.
It's much better than the McAfee total protection plus we were using originally, and functions flawlessly with Windows workstations, Windows servers, terminal servers, linux servers, mobile devices, etc.
However it's exchange anti-spam product sucks.
balls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339</id>
	<title>One proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) You need an anti-virus solution in the Linux box. Assuming that is your only gateway to the external internet, putting up a anti-virus enabled firewall and stopping unwanted protocols is enough to filter out most stuff.<br>2) Disable USB and DVD drives on every PC. Physically. Period.<br>Its cheap and fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) You need an anti-virus solution in the Linux box .
Assuming that is your only gateway to the external internet , putting up a anti-virus enabled firewall and stopping unwanted protocols is enough to filter out most stuff.2 ) Disable USB and DVD drives on every PC .
Physically. Period.Its cheap and fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) You need an anti-virus solution in the Linux box.
Assuming that is your only gateway to the external internet, putting up a anti-virus enabled firewall and stopping unwanted protocols is enough to filter out most stuff.2) Disable USB and DVD drives on every PC.
Physically. Period.Its cheap and fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360649</id>
	<title>Re:Ill tell you what *not* to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more, especially since last week my company got pretty well hosed by virut and it took an all-nighter and lots of extra work to get everything nice and clean again (so they could go right back and infect it with plenty of malware again).  Symantec's response when we asked for the support we pay them so much for basically boiled down to "Sucks for you."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more , especially since last week my company got pretty well hosed by virut and it took an all-nighter and lots of extra work to get everything nice and clean again ( so they could go right back and infect it with plenty of malware again ) .
Symantec 's response when we asked for the support we pay them so much for basically boiled down to " Sucks for you .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more, especially since last week my company got pretty well hosed by virut and it took an all-nighter and lots of extra work to get everything nice and clean again (so they could go right back and infect it with plenty of malware again).
Symantec's response when we asked for the support we pay them so much for basically boiled down to "Sucks for you.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165</id>
	<title>Ill tell you what *not* to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im security admin for a fortune 500, posting anonymous coward. Ill tell you what not to use. Don't use Panda. We have it at a european subsidiary, and I have never seen anything so crap. Never.<br>Now for the advice - Use something you recognise and trial it do death, antivirus detection rates are not so important as product robustness, and console usability. It's no use having something with a 99\% detection rate if the 1\% it doesnt detect are things like virut and conficker, and the product falls over every time you look at it. Coporate antivirus arent so much about detecting 100\% of virus as reliably reporting the viruses they have found, and robustly maintaining communications with the management console so you can deploy updates.<br>These days no antivirus is really very good, I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology. The malware writers are just taking the piss, and Windows can never be virus free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im security admin for a fortune 500 , posting anonymous coward .
Ill tell you what not to use .
Do n't use Panda .
We have it at a european subsidiary , and I have never seen anything so crap .
Never.Now for the advice - Use something you recognise and trial it do death , antivirus detection rates are not so important as product robustness , and console usability .
It 's no use having something with a 99 \ % detection rate if the 1 \ % it doesnt detect are things like virut and conficker , and the product falls over every time you look at it .
Coporate antivirus arent so much about detecting 100 \ % of virus as reliably reporting the viruses they have found , and robustly maintaining communications with the management console so you can deploy updates.These days no antivirus is really very good , I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology .
The malware writers are just taking the piss , and Windows can never be virus free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im security admin for a fortune 500, posting anonymous coward.
Ill tell you what not to use.
Don't use Panda.
We have it at a european subsidiary, and I have never seen anything so crap.
Never.Now for the advice - Use something you recognise and trial it do death, antivirus detection rates are not so important as product robustness, and console usability.
It's no use having something with a 99\% detection rate if the 1\% it doesnt detect are things like virut and conficker, and the product falls over every time you look at it.
Coporate antivirus arent so much about detecting 100\% of virus as reliably reporting the viruses they have found, and robustly maintaining communications with the management console so you can deploy updates.These days no antivirus is really very good, I came to the conclusion a while ago that AV is an obsolete technology.
The malware writers are just taking the piss, and Windows can never be virus free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361645</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>C\_zer0</author>
	<datestamp>1245254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm currently trialing this in my office and so far so good, I'd recommend it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently trialing this in my office and so far so good , I 'd recommend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently trialing this in my office and so far so good, I'd recommend it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360477</id>
	<title>Trend Micro/Avast!</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1245247680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use Trend Micro Officescan here. Looks like the pricing is around $25/user/year and it does a really good job of keeping out malware of any sort. It is all centrally managed and can be pushed out across the domain if you like and you can also implement content filtering. Of course, the downside to this is that you have to install the server part on a Windows server, but picking up a Win2k3 SMB license is only a few hundred dollars.</p><p>I can persoanally vouch for Avast! as well. They have really good catch-rate and you should be able to cover yourself for around $1000, both Windows and Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use Trend Micro Officescan here .
Looks like the pricing is around $ 25/user/year and it does a really good job of keeping out malware of any sort .
It is all centrally managed and can be pushed out across the domain if you like and you can also implement content filtering .
Of course , the downside to this is that you have to install the server part on a Windows server , but picking up a Win2k3 SMB license is only a few hundred dollars.I can persoanally vouch for Avast !
as well .
They have really good catch-rate and you should be able to cover yourself for around $ 1000 , both Windows and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use Trend Micro Officescan here.
Looks like the pricing is around $25/user/year and it does a really good job of keeping out malware of any sort.
It is all centrally managed and can be pushed out across the domain if you like and you can also implement content filtering.
Of course, the downside to this is that you have to install the server part on a Windows server, but picking up a Win2k3 SMB license is only a few hundred dollars.I can persoanally vouch for Avast!
as well.
They have really good catch-rate and you should be able to cover yourself for around $1000, both Windows and Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360255</id>
	<title>Set everyone up with virt web appliances</title>
	<author>pgaffney</author>
	<datestamp>1245246360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My workplace does actually have a lot of users who need the web for work reasons.  What just occurred to me is to set up everyone with software for running virtual machines, then put one on each of their machines that has a web browser on it which refreshes and exports it's bookmark file to each user's network share.  Is there any free software that can run a virtual machine from inside XP like this, or is that a pay only product?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Bitchin!  Looks like VMware player does just this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My workplace does actually have a lot of users who need the web for work reasons .
What just occurred to me is to set up everyone with software for running virtual machines , then put one on each of their machines that has a web browser on it which refreshes and exports it 's bookmark file to each user 's network share .
Is there any free software that can run a virtual machine from inside XP like this , or is that a pay only product ?
... Bitchin !
Looks like VMware player does just this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My workplace does actually have a lot of users who need the web for work reasons.
What just occurred to me is to set up everyone with software for running virtual machines, then put one on each of their machines that has a web browser on it which refreshes and exports it's bookmark file to each user's network share.
Is there any free software that can run a virtual machine from inside XP like this, or is that a pay only product?
... Bitchin!
Looks like VMware player does just this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365535</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245229440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sophos will give you a good price, and the contract includes free licenses for the home computers of all of your employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sophos will give you a good price , and the contract includes free licenses for the home computers of all of your employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sophos will give you a good price, and the contract includes free licenses for the home computers of all of your employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</id>
	<title>We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works well, you just need a windows server/workstation to push it to clients and for clients to get updates from.<br>It's also not very resource hungry.</p><p>I think 30 seats was around $1000</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works well , you just need a windows server/workstation to push it to clients and for clients to get updates from.It 's also not very resource hungry.I think 30 seats was around $ 1000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works well, you just need a windows server/workstation to push it to clients and for clients to get updates from.It's also not very resource hungry.I think 30 seats was around $1000</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360805</id>
	<title>EdgeGuard or AppGuard</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1245249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try <a href="http://www.blueridgenetworks.com/products/edgeguard.php" title="blueridgenetworks.com" rel="nofollow">EdgeGuard</a> [blueridgenetworks.com] or <a href="http://www.blueridgenetworks.com/products/appguard.php" title="blueridgenetworks.com" rel="nofollow">AppGuard</a> [blueridgenetworks.com]. They provide protection against malware from USB drives or zero-day web site exploits. (Full disclosure: I work for the company that produces these.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try EdgeGuard [ blueridgenetworks.com ] or AppGuard [ blueridgenetworks.com ] .
They provide protection against malware from USB drives or zero-day web site exploits .
( Full disclosure : I work for the company that produces these .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try EdgeGuard [blueridgenetworks.com] or AppGuard [blueridgenetworks.com].
They provide protection against malware from USB drives or zero-day web site exploits.
(Full disclosure: I work for the company that produces these.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359679</id>
	<title>Re:Trend Micro</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1245241140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto for Trend here, we've not had any serious problems with viruses for a few years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto for Trend here , we 've not had any serious problems with viruses for a few years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto for Trend here, we've not had any serious problems with viruses for a few years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360187</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245245760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have done a cost/efficiency analysis and when you take into account IT services and back log time, the price of buying Mac instead of PC turn out to be the same. So we are encouraging people to migrate (we are small subsidiary but the analysis was compared with our big mother)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have done a cost/efficiency analysis and when you take into account IT services and back log time , the price of buying Mac instead of PC turn out to be the same .
So we are encouraging people to migrate ( we are small subsidiary but the analysis was compared with our big mother )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have done a cost/efficiency analysis and when you take into account IT services and back log time, the price of buying Mac instead of PC turn out to be the same.
So we are encouraging people to migrate (we are small subsidiary but the analysis was compared with our big mother)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365111</id>
	<title>Too Big?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245270540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 machines and a server is too big to manage manually?</p><p>Slap a free AV on there with automatic updates and scheduled scans.  When users complain of spyware and viruses and such, you go in and fix it.</p><p>NO ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE is worth a damn in terms of prevention.  They are ALL absolute garbage.  You only install to cover your ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 machines and a server is too big to manage manually ? Slap a free AV on there with automatic updates and scheduled scans .
When users complain of spyware and viruses and such , you go in and fix it.NO ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE is worth a damn in terms of prevention .
They are ALL absolute garbage .
You only install to cover your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 machines and a server is too big to manage manually?Slap a free AV on there with automatic updates and scheduled scans.
When users complain of spyware and viruses and such, you go in and fix it.NO ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE is worth a damn in terms of prevention.
They are ALL absolute garbage.
You only install to cover your ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358933</id>
	<title>Re:One proposal</title>
	<author>ammit</author>
	<datestamp>1245231480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disable USB and DVD?

Whilst that may be "a solution" I think he was nodding towards something errrr...workable??  He said in his original post that it was needed for USBs as well.

I'm pretty sure that there is sweet FA you could do if someone did run a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe containing malicious code anyway.  This happened at a place I worked once and all it did was disable the antivirus.  Useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disable USB and DVD ?
Whilst that may be " a solution " I think he was nodding towards something errrr...workable ? ?
He said in his original post that it was needed for USBs as well .
I 'm pretty sure that there is sweet FA you could do if someone did run a .exe containing malicious code anyway .
This happened at a place I worked once and all it did was disable the antivirus .
Useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disable USB and DVD?
Whilst that may be "a solution" I think he was nodding towards something errrr...workable??
He said in his original post that it was needed for USBs as well.
I'm pretty sure that there is sweet FA you could do if someone did run a .exe containing malicious code anyway.
This happened at a place I worked once and all it did was disable the antivirus.
Useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358703</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245271740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all with you but it isn't exactly that easy. Some software packages to this day still require root access to the local machine even though the domain user is restricted and it is designed to run on a domain. QuickBooks used to be really bad with that but I don't think it is anymore. You also have the problem with approved sites being <a href="http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=110055" title="techworld.com">compromised</a> [techworld.com] and using browser exploits to defeat security <a href="http://apcmag.com/microsoft\_apologises\_for\_serving\_malware.htm" title="apcmag.com">limitations.</a> [apcmag.com]</p><p>You also have the problem of some sites that don't even have a full time sysadmin. It's difficult to restrict US sticks and all if there isn't someone there to allow it when it's needed. I have used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent\_Platform\_Management\_Interface" title="wikipedia.org">IPMI</a> [wikipedia.org] in the past but this gets tricky when you aren't there.</p><p>Your right though, those things should be considered and implemented. I try to set up proxy servers with access lists like Dan's guardian or something and redirect all zipped and executable downloads to a specific file where a script runs a virus scan on them before releasing it to the user. However, that is something easier accomplished at large sites more so then a 20 user site which the IT guy may be at it once every two weeks unless something goes wrong. I also just had an issue where an over priced app needed internet access and had no concept of networking so it wasn't able to grab the proxy settings from the workstation. It almost caused the entire proxy to go down until I figures out some IP-tables kung-fu where you can block all traffic except specifically allowed traffic and I basically had to set up a second network head.</p><p>The worse part about this was that I had the sales rep telling the owner we weren't smart for having the proxy in the first place, they are dangerous and we should get rid of it, to use a windows server instead. I won't give the name of the company, what the app did, or why the app needed to access the internet, but I ended up justifying the configuration by showing the PCI DSS standards and reminding the owner what it was like before we put the proxy in (he has kids supervising kids in the evenings, you can guess where that led to). He almost had me follow the rep's suggestion and rip the proxy out instead of insisting the app be fixed. The app wasn't fixed, I kludged a workaround in place, he uses it, and still and pays the annual license fee. It can be a real bitch implementing what you suggest- and yes, I agree with implementing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all with you but it is n't exactly that easy .
Some software packages to this day still require root access to the local machine even though the domain user is restricted and it is designed to run on a domain .
QuickBooks used to be really bad with that but I do n't think it is anymore .
You also have the problem with approved sites being compromised [ techworld.com ] and using browser exploits to defeat security limitations .
[ apcmag.com ] You also have the problem of some sites that do n't even have a full time sysadmin .
It 's difficult to restrict US sticks and all if there is n't someone there to allow it when it 's needed .
I have used IPMI [ wikipedia.org ] in the past but this gets tricky when you are n't there.Your right though , those things should be considered and implemented .
I try to set up proxy servers with access lists like Dan 's guardian or something and redirect all zipped and executable downloads to a specific file where a script runs a virus scan on them before releasing it to the user .
However , that is something easier accomplished at large sites more so then a 20 user site which the IT guy may be at it once every two weeks unless something goes wrong .
I also just had an issue where an over priced app needed internet access and had no concept of networking so it was n't able to grab the proxy settings from the workstation .
It almost caused the entire proxy to go down until I figures out some IP-tables kung-fu where you can block all traffic except specifically allowed traffic and I basically had to set up a second network head.The worse part about this was that I had the sales rep telling the owner we were n't smart for having the proxy in the first place , they are dangerous and we should get rid of it , to use a windows server instead .
I wo n't give the name of the company , what the app did , or why the app needed to access the internet , but I ended up justifying the configuration by showing the PCI DSS standards and reminding the owner what it was like before we put the proxy in ( he has kids supervising kids in the evenings , you can guess where that led to ) .
He almost had me follow the rep 's suggestion and rip the proxy out instead of insisting the app be fixed .
The app was n't fixed , I kludged a workaround in place , he uses it , and still and pays the annual license fee .
It can be a real bitch implementing what you suggest- and yes , I agree with implementing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all with you but it isn't exactly that easy.
Some software packages to this day still require root access to the local machine even though the domain user is restricted and it is designed to run on a domain.
QuickBooks used to be really bad with that but I don't think it is anymore.
You also have the problem with approved sites being compromised [techworld.com] and using browser exploits to defeat security limitations.
[apcmag.com]You also have the problem of some sites that don't even have a full time sysadmin.
It's difficult to restrict US sticks and all if there isn't someone there to allow it when it's needed.
I have used IPMI [wikipedia.org] in the past but this gets tricky when you aren't there.Your right though, those things should be considered and implemented.
I try to set up proxy servers with access lists like Dan's guardian or something and redirect all zipped and executable downloads to a specific file where a script runs a virus scan on them before releasing it to the user.
However, that is something easier accomplished at large sites more so then a 20 user site which the IT guy may be at it once every two weeks unless something goes wrong.
I also just had an issue where an over priced app needed internet access and had no concept of networking so it wasn't able to grab the proxy settings from the workstation.
It almost caused the entire proxy to go down until I figures out some IP-tables kung-fu where you can block all traffic except specifically allowed traffic and I basically had to set up a second network head.The worse part about this was that I had the sales rep telling the owner we weren't smart for having the proxy in the first place, they are dangerous and we should get rid of it, to use a windows server instead.
I won't give the name of the company, what the app did, or why the app needed to access the internet, but I ended up justifying the configuration by showing the PCI DSS standards and reminding the owner what it was like before we put the proxy in (he has kids supervising kids in the evenings, you can guess where that led to).
He almost had me follow the rep's suggestion and rip the proxy out instead of insisting the app be fixed.
The app wasn't fixed, I kludged a workaround in place, he uses it, and still and pays the annual license fee.
It can be a real bitch implementing what you suggest- and yes, I agree with implementing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362169</id>
	<title>Re:Trend Micro</title>
	<author>Daniel Boisvert</author>
	<datestamp>1245256920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go this route, make sure you get their Enterprise product.  We used that for several years and had no problems with it, but were eventually moved into their SMB offering due to our size (~30 licenses), and I found the SMB product's management capabilities to be awful, the interface to be buggy and unstable, etc.  Our VAR recently gave us a heads up that they'd changed the product again, and confirmed it would require another round of uninstall/reinstall, so we took the opportunity to evaluate our options and have moved to another vendor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go this route , make sure you get their Enterprise product .
We used that for several years and had no problems with it , but were eventually moved into their SMB offering due to our size ( ~ 30 licenses ) , and I found the SMB product 's management capabilities to be awful , the interface to be buggy and unstable , etc .
Our VAR recently gave us a heads up that they 'd changed the product again , and confirmed it would require another round of uninstall/reinstall , so we took the opportunity to evaluate our options and have moved to another vendor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go this route, make sure you get their Enterprise product.
We used that for several years and had no problems with it, but were eventually moved into their SMB offering due to our size (~30 licenses), and I found the SMB product's management capabilities to be awful, the interface to be buggy and unstable, etc.
Our VAR recently gave us a heads up that they'd changed the product again, and confirmed it would require another round of uninstall/reinstall, so we took the opportunity to evaluate our options and have moved to another vendor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359583</id>
	<title>ClamWin</title>
	<author>sglafata</author>
	<datestamp>1245240240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could just use ClamWin on the Windows computers. I put it on all my Windows machines (2) and all my clients machines. You'll notice an incredible speed boost, because Symantec and McAfee tend to be resource hogs, and you can set it up to email you if it gets infected. You can also set it up to run regularly scheduled scans. It's really a beautiful piece of software, and the cost is FREE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could just use ClamWin on the Windows computers .
I put it on all my Windows machines ( 2 ) and all my clients machines .
You 'll notice an incredible speed boost , because Symantec and McAfee tend to be resource hogs , and you can set it up to email you if it gets infected .
You can also set it up to run regularly scheduled scans .
It 's really a beautiful piece of software , and the cost is FREE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could just use ClamWin on the Windows computers.
I put it on all my Windows machines (2) and all my clients machines.
You'll notice an incredible speed boost, because Symantec and McAfee tend to be resource hogs, and you can set it up to email you if it gets infected.
You can also set it up to run regularly scheduled scans.
It's really a beautiful piece of software, and the cost is FREE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358611</id>
	<title>F-Secure Client Security</title>
	<author>conares</author>
	<datestamp>1245270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.f-secure.com/en\_EMEA/products/business/desktops-laptops/client-security/" title="f-secure.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.f-secure.com/en\_EMEA/products/business/desktops-laptops/client-security/</a> [f-secure.com]

Sold that to a few clients.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.f-secure.com/en \ _EMEA/products/business/desktops-laptops/client-security/ [ f-secure.com ] Sold that to a few clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.f-secure.com/en\_EMEA/products/business/desktops-laptops/client-security/ [f-secure.com]

Sold that to a few clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358691</id>
	<title>NOD32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank me later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank me later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank me later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358113</id>
	<title>We use Avast Corporate</title>
	<author>BabaChazz</author>
	<datestamp>1245179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least, we do at the school. That's a 50-station network, and amounts to about $10 a year per station after the educational discount. $20/year per station without, but you get cut rates for longer terms. I'm quite happy with Avast.

At the business (20 stations, no AD when it was installed aeons ago) we used Trend Micro ServerProtect, which is no longer supported. That one was $800/25 stations flat fee and is still being updated.

Neither one of those needs an AD server for its console, though they are both Windows based.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least , we do at the school .
That 's a 50-station network , and amounts to about $ 10 a year per station after the educational discount .
$ 20/year per station without , but you get cut rates for longer terms .
I 'm quite happy with Avast .
At the business ( 20 stations , no AD when it was installed aeons ago ) we used Trend Micro ServerProtect , which is no longer supported .
That one was $ 800/25 stations flat fee and is still being updated .
Neither one of those needs an AD server for its console , though they are both Windows based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least, we do at the school.
That's a 50-station network, and amounts to about $10 a year per station after the educational discount.
$20/year per station without, but you get cut rates for longer terms.
I'm quite happy with Avast.
At the business (20 stations, no AD when it was installed aeons ago) we used Trend Micro ServerProtect, which is no longer supported.
That one was $800/25 stations flat fee and is still being updated.
Neither one of those needs an AD server for its console, though they are both Windows based.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358711</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had to install AV for company and part of my task was figuring out which one was the most effective. Take a look at <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/" title="av-comparatives.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.av-comparatives.org/</a> [av-comparatives.org] which is an excellent comparison site for AV products. Avira enterprise always came out on top. They have a enterprise client with centralized management etc etc and it works well. Of coarse I personally dislike windows a ton but it's part of the job. If you want a centrally managed AV solutions keep clamav on the mail server, install clam through squid for web access and disable the cdrom and usb disks in windows. Thats the best you can probably do since just about everything in the windows world costs an arm and a leg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had to install AV for company and part of my task was figuring out which one was the most effective .
Take a look at http : //www.av-comparatives.org/ [ av-comparatives.org ] which is an excellent comparison site for AV products .
Avira enterprise always came out on top .
They have a enterprise client with centralized management etc etc and it works well .
Of coarse I personally dislike windows a ton but it 's part of the job .
If you want a centrally managed AV solutions keep clamav on the mail server , install clam through squid for web access and disable the cdrom and usb disks in windows .
Thats the best you can probably do since just about everything in the windows world costs an arm and a leg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had to install AV for company and part of my task was figuring out which one was the most effective.
Take a look at http://www.av-comparatives.org/ [av-comparatives.org] which is an excellent comparison site for AV products.
Avira enterprise always came out on top.
They have a enterprise client with centralized management etc etc and it works well.
Of coarse I personally dislike windows a ton but it's part of the job.
If you want a centrally managed AV solutions keep clamav on the mail server, install clam through squid for web access and disable the cdrom and usb disks in windows.
Thats the best you can probably do since just about everything in the windows world costs an arm and a leg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359593</id>
	<title>Worry-Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have Trend-Micro Worry-Free Business Security.  Really nice software.</p><p>http://us.trendmicro.com/us/home/small-business/?WT.mc\_id=2008HP\_SB\_tab</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have Trend-Micro Worry-Free Business Security .
Really nice software.http : //us.trendmicro.com/us/home/small-business/ ? WT.mc \ _id = 2008HP \ _SB \ _tab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have Trend-Micro Worry-Free Business Security.
Really nice software.http://us.trendmicro.com/us/home/small-business/?WT.mc\_id=2008HP\_SB\_tab</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360295</id>
	<title>I hope your windows updates are runing on each sys</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245246660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope your windows updates are running on each system also if you just use windows update and not microsoft update you are not getting all the updates. You need to install MS update one time to get it to show all of of them and if you don't have the time to go to each system then maybe you should set up a wsus server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope your windows updates are running on each system also if you just use windows update and not microsoft update you are not getting all the updates .
You need to install MS update one time to get it to show all of of them and if you do n't have the time to go to each system then maybe you should set up a wsus server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope your windows updates are running on each system also if you just use windows update and not microsoft update you are not getting all the updates.
You need to install MS update one time to get it to show all of of them and if you don't have the time to go to each system then maybe you should set up a wsus server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358295</id>
	<title>It depends</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1245180960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I "administer" our small business IT infrastructure (well, it's just 10 computers) and our solution was to assess who needs internet access. As it turned out, the boss and the secretary need web, email and access to the accounting software on the remote side of a VPN, and the other guys don't because they use only internal documents. But they do need Windows because we use Windows-only software (SolidWorks and MasterCAM). So I've setup a fast Linux box that's on the internet, that provides web and email access through <a href="http://www.nomachine.com/" title="nomachine.com">NX servers and clients</a> [nomachine.com] (that is, the clients run on the linux box and display on the Windows workstations). USB ports are also disabled on all Windows boxes, and people who really want to see what's in a USB key have to plug it on the Linux box and have the content checked before it's transfered to a Samba share for Windows consumption. Same thing for CDs. None of the Windows boxes ever see the internet.</p><p>None of our Windows boxes are patched, updated or fitted with antivirus software, and we're doing just fine. The Windows boxes are super-fast as a result too.</p><p>But that's *our* solution. Your mileage may vary, but I think you should make a reasonable assessment of workers' need for internet access. You may be surprised how few actually need it to do their work (IM isn't a valid reason) and you may be able to rearrange your infrastructure to make it very easy and manageable like ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I " administer " our small business IT infrastructure ( well , it 's just 10 computers ) and our solution was to assess who needs internet access .
As it turned out , the boss and the secretary need web , email and access to the accounting software on the remote side of a VPN , and the other guys do n't because they use only internal documents .
But they do need Windows because we use Windows-only software ( SolidWorks and MasterCAM ) .
So I 've setup a fast Linux box that 's on the internet , that provides web and email access through NX servers and clients [ nomachine.com ] ( that is , the clients run on the linux box and display on the Windows workstations ) .
USB ports are also disabled on all Windows boxes , and people who really want to see what 's in a USB key have to plug it on the Linux box and have the content checked before it 's transfered to a Samba share for Windows consumption .
Same thing for CDs .
None of the Windows boxes ever see the internet.None of our Windows boxes are patched , updated or fitted with antivirus software , and we 're doing just fine .
The Windows boxes are super-fast as a result too.But that 's * our * solution .
Your mileage may vary , but I think you should make a reasonable assessment of workers ' need for internet access .
You may be surprised how few actually need it to do their work ( IM is n't a valid reason ) and you may be able to rearrange your infrastructure to make it very easy and manageable like ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I "administer" our small business IT infrastructure (well, it's just 10 computers) and our solution was to assess who needs internet access.
As it turned out, the boss and the secretary need web, email and access to the accounting software on the remote side of a VPN, and the other guys don't because they use only internal documents.
But they do need Windows because we use Windows-only software (SolidWorks and MasterCAM).
So I've setup a fast Linux box that's on the internet, that provides web and email access through NX servers and clients [nomachine.com] (that is, the clients run on the linux box and display on the Windows workstations).
USB ports are also disabled on all Windows boxes, and people who really want to see what's in a USB key have to plug it on the Linux box and have the content checked before it's transfered to a Samba share for Windows consumption.
Same thing for CDs.
None of the Windows boxes ever see the internet.None of our Windows boxes are patched, updated or fitted with antivirus software, and we're doing just fine.
The Windows boxes are super-fast as a result too.But that's *our* solution.
Your mileage may vary, but I think you should make a reasonable assessment of workers' need for internet access.
You may be surprised how few actually need it to do their work (IM isn't a valid reason) and you may be able to rearrange your infrastructure to make it very easy and manageable like ours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359385</id>
	<title>clamav is so exploitable you'd be better without</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh.<br>no ones listening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh.no ones listening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh.no ones listening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361545</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1245253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As sibling states, a forced upgrade in the next year or two is likely anyway.  The real question is compatibility.  Depending on what they do, Macs could be completely compatible with their current system. Normally one of the biggest compatibility nightmares with migrating a shop to a different OS (OS X or Linux) from Windows is replicating all of the stuff that AD does for you.  These guys already don't use AD, so Macs (or Linux workstations for that matter) could work for them depending on the application software they use.  Hell, by using a Unix based workstation OS, they could GAIN a lot.  Suddenly OpenLDAP and NFS become easy solutions to solve many problems that AD normally solves in pure Windows Domains.  Since their server is Linux already, (again depending on application support) Mac OS or Linux could make their whole system much more compatible.</p><p>Now if AutoCAD is a requirement for business, then the whole idea falls apart.  Certainly switching operating systems and/or systems is not always a great solution, but especially given Microsoft's big push to get people off of XP, it's worth consideration at least.  It may not works for the questioner, but it may, and now is a pretty good time to consider it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As sibling states , a forced upgrade in the next year or two is likely anyway .
The real question is compatibility .
Depending on what they do , Macs could be completely compatible with their current system .
Normally one of the biggest compatibility nightmares with migrating a shop to a different OS ( OS X or Linux ) from Windows is replicating all of the stuff that AD does for you .
These guys already do n't use AD , so Macs ( or Linux workstations for that matter ) could work for them depending on the application software they use .
Hell , by using a Unix based workstation OS , they could GAIN a lot .
Suddenly OpenLDAP and NFS become easy solutions to solve many problems that AD normally solves in pure Windows Domains .
Since their server is Linux already , ( again depending on application support ) Mac OS or Linux could make their whole system much more compatible.Now if AutoCAD is a requirement for business , then the whole idea falls apart .
Certainly switching operating systems and/or systems is not always a great solution , but especially given Microsoft 's big push to get people off of XP , it 's worth consideration at least .
It may not works for the questioner , but it may , and now is a pretty good time to consider it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As sibling states, a forced upgrade in the next year or two is likely anyway.
The real question is compatibility.
Depending on what they do, Macs could be completely compatible with their current system.
Normally one of the biggest compatibility nightmares with migrating a shop to a different OS (OS X or Linux) from Windows is replicating all of the stuff that AD does for you.
These guys already don't use AD, so Macs (or Linux workstations for that matter) could work for them depending on the application software they use.
Hell, by using a Unix based workstation OS, they could GAIN a lot.
Suddenly OpenLDAP and NFS become easy solutions to solve many problems that AD normally solves in pure Windows Domains.
Since their server is Linux already, (again depending on application support) Mac OS or Linux could make their whole system much more compatible.Now if AutoCAD is a requirement for business, then the whole idea falls apart.
Certainly switching operating systems and/or systems is not always a great solution, but especially given Microsoft's big push to get people off of XP, it's worth consideration at least.
It may not works for the questioner, but it may, and now is a pretty good time to consider it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360169</id>
	<title>look at Untangle</title>
	<author>doubtintom</author>
	<datestamp>1245245580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check out <a href="http://untangle.com/" title="untangle.com" rel="nofollow">http://untangle.com/</a> [untangle.com]<br>It is a security gateway that is used as a router or sitting behind your router bridged to your LAN.<br>Their free version contains some of the best open source anti-malware packages like SpamAssassin, snort, etc. You still need to mind thumb drives, DVDs and any other sources that don't pass through Untangle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check out http : //untangle.com/ [ untangle.com ] It is a security gateway that is used as a router or sitting behind your router bridged to your LAN.Their free version contains some of the best open source anti-malware packages like SpamAssassin , snort , etc .
You still need to mind thumb drives , DVDs and any other sources that do n't pass through Untangle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check out http://untangle.com/ [untangle.com]It is a security gateway that is used as a router or sitting behind your router bridged to your LAN.Their free version contains some of the best open source anti-malware packages like SpamAssassin, snort, etc.
You still need to mind thumb drives, DVDs and any other sources that don't pass through Untangle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360787</id>
	<title>AVG Network Edition</title>
	<author>CAOgdin</author>
	<datestamp>1245249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.avg.com/business-security" title="avg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.avg.com/business-security</a> [avg.com] <br> <br>

I've installed in several environments of multiple WinXP Pro workstations.<br> <br>

Put the "server" part on one ocmputer; let it do the updating and provide for central configuration.<br> <br>

You still have to install clients on each computer.  I like to use InstallRite (http://www.epsilonsquared.com/installrite.htm):  Run the "before setup" part of InstallRite, do the full install and configuration, then run the "after startup" part of capture a single file "Install Kit" that you can then run on the rest of the computers to get it fully installed.  It saves lots and lots of time.<br> <br>

In the AVG Network Edition, the "server" contacts AVG's update server, then acts as a local proxy for that update information to the clients.<br> <br>

I BAN Symantec and Norton products from all computers we maintain under contract:  Great advertising, but lousy products that can't be uninstalled:  There are lingering traces that require Unlocker (http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/) and a high-quality registry cleaner (I like jv16 Power Tools, <a href="http://www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/" title="macecraft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/</a> [macecraft.com]) to root out all of the junk Symantec leaves behind.  Not worth the effort when I can install a better, cheaper and more-reliable product (AVG).</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.avg.com/business-security [ avg.com ] I 've installed in several environments of multiple WinXP Pro workstations .
Put the " server " part on one ocmputer ; let it do the updating and provide for central configuration .
You still have to install clients on each computer .
I like to use InstallRite ( http : //www.epsilonsquared.com/installrite.htm ) : Run the " before setup " part of InstallRite , do the full install and configuration , then run the " after startup " part of capture a single file " Install Kit " that you can then run on the rest of the computers to get it fully installed .
It saves lots and lots of time .
In the AVG Network Edition , the " server " contacts AVG 's update server , then acts as a local proxy for that update information to the clients .
I BAN Symantec and Norton products from all computers we maintain under contract : Great advertising , but lousy products that ca n't be uninstalled : There are lingering traces that require Unlocker ( http : //ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ ) and a high-quality registry cleaner ( I like jv16 Power Tools , http : //www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/ [ macecraft.com ] ) to root out all of the junk Symantec leaves behind .
Not worth the effort when I can install a better , cheaper and more-reliable product ( AVG ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.avg.com/business-security [avg.com]  

I've installed in several environments of multiple WinXP Pro workstations.
Put the "server" part on one ocmputer; let it do the updating and provide for central configuration.
You still have to install clients on each computer.
I like to use InstallRite (http://www.epsilonsquared.com/installrite.htm):  Run the "before setup" part of InstallRite, do the full install and configuration, then run the "after startup" part of capture a single file "Install Kit" that you can then run on the rest of the computers to get it fully installed.
It saves lots and lots of time.
In the AVG Network Edition, the "server" contacts AVG's update server, then acts as a local proxy for that update information to the clients.
I BAN Symantec and Norton products from all computers we maintain under contract:  Great advertising, but lousy products that can't be uninstalled:  There are lingering traces that require Unlocker (http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/) and a high-quality registry cleaner (I like jv16 Power Tools, http://www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/ [macecraft.com]) to root out all of the junk Symantec leaves behind.
Not worth the effort when I can install a better, cheaper and more-reliable product (AVG).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360051</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1245244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran a shop for 2 years with NOD32 with practically no infections and very little maintenance. Prior to NOD32 we used Symantec corporate version and had 1 or 2 outbreaks a year.</p><p>No AV is invulnerable but NOD32 does a fine job of preventing most infections.  It also is the least resource intensive product out there and will not noticeably slow your PCs.   It's hooks into the TCP/IP stack go a long way in preventing web distributed malware.   So far, it is NOT bloatware and I believe Eset prides themselves on that.</p><p>One other thing to note....  There is NO AV solution out there that which can remove all malware from an already infected machine.   Start with clean machines.   Removal of the latest malware (esp rootkits) usually requires specialized tools and some manual detective work.</p><p>I found that the management console went mostly unused.   The clients can be configured to email alerts when infections are detected.  The only thing I found the mgmnt console useful for was generating reports for auditors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran a shop for 2 years with NOD32 with practically no infections and very little maintenance .
Prior to NOD32 we used Symantec corporate version and had 1 or 2 outbreaks a year.No AV is invulnerable but NOD32 does a fine job of preventing most infections .
It also is the least resource intensive product out there and will not noticeably slow your PCs .
It 's hooks into the TCP/IP stack go a long way in preventing web distributed malware .
So far , it is NOT bloatware and I believe Eset prides themselves on that.One other thing to note.... There is NO AV solution out there that which can remove all malware from an already infected machine .
Start with clean machines .
Removal of the latest malware ( esp rootkits ) usually requires specialized tools and some manual detective work.I found that the management console went mostly unused .
The clients can be configured to email alerts when infections are detected .
The only thing I found the mgmnt console useful for was generating reports for auditors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran a shop for 2 years with NOD32 with practically no infections and very little maintenance.
Prior to NOD32 we used Symantec corporate version and had 1 or 2 outbreaks a year.No AV is invulnerable but NOD32 does a fine job of preventing most infections.
It also is the least resource intensive product out there and will not noticeably slow your PCs.
It's hooks into the TCP/IP stack go a long way in preventing web distributed malware.
So far, it is NOT bloatware and I believe Eset prides themselves on that.One other thing to note....  There is NO AV solution out there that which can remove all malware from an already infected machine.
Start with clean machines.
Removal of the latest malware (esp rootkits) usually requires specialized tools and some manual detective work.I found that the management console went mostly unused.
The clients can be configured to email alerts when infections are detected.
The only thing I found the mgmnt console useful for was generating reports for auditors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359565</id>
	<title>Perl</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1245239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perl scripting is the answer. Install a free anti-virus, and setup a script checking.

Check the anti-virus files and registry entry. You can get all the information you need, program virus version, database version, and use a central server to store the logs. Using scripts you can force anti-virus updates and restart.


I have a lot of experience with Trend Micro and all the anti-virus parts are daily checked with Perl scripts (during the night), to make sure the clients behave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl scripting is the answer .
Install a free anti-virus , and setup a script checking .
Check the anti-virus files and registry entry .
You can get all the information you need , program virus version , database version , and use a central server to store the logs .
Using scripts you can force anti-virus updates and restart .
I have a lot of experience with Trend Micro and all the anti-virus parts are daily checked with Perl scripts ( during the night ) , to make sure the clients behave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl scripting is the answer.
Install a free anti-virus, and setup a script checking.
Check the anti-virus files and registry entry.
You can get all the information you need, program virus version, database version, and use a central server to store the logs.
Using scripts you can force anti-virus updates and restart.
I have a lot of experience with Trend Micro and all the anti-virus parts are daily checked with Perl scripts (during the night), to make sure the clients behave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28367975</id>
	<title>Try F-Prot</title>
	<author>DanRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1245243600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try F-Prot corporate. <a href="http://f-prot.com/" title="f-prot.com" rel="nofollow">http://f-prot.com/</a> [f-prot.com]
10 licenses/year is $50US.  We had it at work for a couple of years for 20 seats at $90<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/year
I'm back with it after 1/2 year of Spybot S&amp;D.  It found a couple of things that ENOD32 missed.
It also doesn't lag, even on old VIA Centaur cpu's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try F-Prot corporate .
http : //f-prot.com/ [ f-prot.com ] 10 licenses/year is $ 50US .
We had it at work for a couple of years for 20 seats at $ 90 /year I 'm back with it after 1/2 year of Spybot S&amp;D .
It found a couple of things that ENOD32 missed .
It also does n't lag , even on old VIA Centaur cpu 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try F-Prot corporate.
http://f-prot.com/ [f-prot.com]
10 licenses/year is $50US.
We had it at work for a couple of years for 20 seats at $90 /year
I'm back with it after 1/2 year of Spybot S&amp;D.
It found a couple of things that ENOD32 missed.
It also doesn't lag, even on old VIA Centaur cpu's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361005</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1245250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new door<br>&gt;<br>&gt; And i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand.</p><p>No. It's like saying a house needs demolished because it's infested with termites.</p><p>This (your) moronic attitude about security is what leads to the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new door &gt; &gt; And i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand.No .
It 's like saying a house needs demolished because it 's infested with termites.This ( your ) moronic attitude about security is what leads to the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new door&gt;&gt; And i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand.No.
It's like saying a house needs demolished because it's infested with termites.This (your) moronic attitude about security is what leads to the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361487</id>
	<title>Try F-Secure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about F-Secure, their management runs on Linux and detection is great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about F-Secure , their management runs on Linux and detection is great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about F-Secure, their management runs on Linux and detection is great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361257</id>
	<title>Similar situation</title>
	<author>Ace\_Of\_Chase</author>
	<datestamp>1245252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run an IT department in a non-profit school for autistic children. In our world, non-profit means very little money, especialy for IT, and so we have had to make some very creative solutions at times. Right now our network is primarily windows machines for the end users, Linux on all the servers, and one Mac. We have threatfire (free) on all of our windows machines along with malware bytes (also free) and our firewall (untangle, Linux, also free) has antivirus software that protects the traffic. It seems to do very well for us, and our problems are minimal. Threatfire seems to do a pretty good job with usb drives as well. our Linux machines, virus free since day one (naturaly)
-Chase</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run an IT department in a non-profit school for autistic children .
In our world , non-profit means very little money , especialy for IT , and so we have had to make some very creative solutions at times .
Right now our network is primarily windows machines for the end users , Linux on all the servers , and one Mac .
We have threatfire ( free ) on all of our windows machines along with malware bytes ( also free ) and our firewall ( untangle , Linux , also free ) has antivirus software that protects the traffic .
It seems to do very well for us , and our problems are minimal .
Threatfire seems to do a pretty good job with usb drives as well .
our Linux machines , virus free since day one ( naturaly ) -Chase</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run an IT department in a non-profit school for autistic children.
In our world, non-profit means very little money, especialy for IT, and so we have had to make some very creative solutions at times.
Right now our network is primarily windows machines for the end users, Linux on all the servers, and one Mac.
We have threatfire (free) on all of our windows machines along with malware bytes (also free) and our firewall (untangle, Linux, also free) has antivirus software that protects the traffic.
It seems to do very well for us, and our problems are minimal.
Threatfire seems to do a pretty good job with usb drives as well.
our Linux machines, virus free since day one (naturaly)
-Chase</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360007</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1245244320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another vote for NOD32.  We use Shitmantec Corporate right now, and I am counting the days untill our updates expire so we can switch.</p><p>Aloso, the price we were quoited is only a few dollars per client higher than just RENEWING Symantec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another vote for NOD32 .
We use Shitmantec Corporate right now , and I am counting the days untill our updates expire so we can switch.Aloso , the price we were quoited is only a few dollars per client higher than just RENEWING Symantec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another vote for NOD32.
We use Shitmantec Corporate right now, and I am counting the days untill our updates expire so we can switch.Aloso, the price we were quoited is only a few dollars per client higher than just RENEWING Symantec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358491</id>
	<title>mcafee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my personal experience, I found mcafee asap (mcafeeasap.com) the easiest to use in such a small business. This software has "agents" which report their status back to the mcafeeasap.com website, from which the administrator can monitor all pcs.</p><p>This idea is great for small companies. The implementation however had a few problems:<br>- Over time, I've installed all "agents" at least twice. They just stop working for no reason at random moments<br>- Some agents 'do' have a reason to stop: they think the license has expired, while it's definitely not.<br>- And mcafee is bloated + it uses mshtml for every single dialog and even for invisible actions like downloading updates. This eats cpu power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my personal experience , I found mcafee asap ( mcafeeasap.com ) the easiest to use in such a small business .
This software has " agents " which report their status back to the mcafeeasap.com website , from which the administrator can monitor all pcs.This idea is great for small companies .
The implementation however had a few problems : - Over time , I 've installed all " agents " at least twice .
They just stop working for no reason at random moments- Some agents 'do ' have a reason to stop : they think the license has expired , while it 's definitely not.- And mcafee is bloated + it uses mshtml for every single dialog and even for invisible actions like downloading updates .
This eats cpu power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my personal experience, I found mcafee asap (mcafeeasap.com) the easiest to use in such a small business.
This software has "agents" which report their status back to the mcafeeasap.com website, from which the administrator can monitor all pcs.This idea is great for small companies.
The implementation however had a few problems:- Over time, I've installed all "agents" at least twice.
They just stop working for no reason at random moments- Some agents 'do' have a reason to stop: they think the license has expired, while it's definitely not.- And mcafee is bloated + it uses mshtml for every single dialog and even for invisible actions like downloading updates.
This eats cpu power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360967</id>
	<title>Re:Sophos</title>
	<author>TangoCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1245250680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sophos's main website is <a href="http://www.sophos.com/" title="sophos.com">www.sophos.com</a> [sophos.com].  Sophos is the solution I have chosen for the company I work for. The "Enterprise Console" stuff requires a Windows server. As it happens, Sophos had a centralised administration system called "InterCHK", and that could be used with a linux server (that's how I originally set it up), however the new tools are Windows only (shame).  I recently evaluated NOD32: I came to the conclusion that the centralised adminitstration wasn't as good as Sophos, so stuck with Sophos (despite the Windows Server issue).  I should point out that I still occasionally get computers which get compromised..... it's always the "Road Warriors".  We've not had a virus enter through the main network since I've worked here. I should add that the gateway is a linux box and it scans emails using ClamAV.<br>My vote: Sophos (but you're gonna need a Windows box to run the "Enterprise Console" on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sophos 's main website is www.sophos.com [ sophos.com ] .
Sophos is the solution I have chosen for the company I work for .
The " Enterprise Console " stuff requires a Windows server .
As it happens , Sophos had a centralised administration system called " InterCHK " , and that could be used with a linux server ( that 's how I originally set it up ) , however the new tools are Windows only ( shame ) .
I recently evaluated NOD32 : I came to the conclusion that the centralised adminitstration was n't as good as Sophos , so stuck with Sophos ( despite the Windows Server issue ) .
I should point out that I still occasionally get computers which get compromised..... it 's always the " Road Warriors " .
We 've not had a virus enter through the main network since I 've worked here .
I should add that the gateway is a linux box and it scans emails using ClamAV.My vote : Sophos ( but you 're gon na need a Windows box to run the " Enterprise Console " on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sophos's main website is www.sophos.com [sophos.com].
Sophos is the solution I have chosen for the company I work for.
The "Enterprise Console" stuff requires a Windows server.
As it happens, Sophos had a centralised administration system called "InterCHK", and that could be used with a linux server (that's how I originally set it up), however the new tools are Windows only (shame).
I recently evaluated NOD32: I came to the conclusion that the centralised adminitstration wasn't as good as Sophos, so stuck with Sophos (despite the Windows Server issue).
I should point out that I still occasionally get computers which get compromised..... it's always the "Road Warriors".
We've not had a virus enter through the main network since I've worked here.
I should add that the gateway is a linux box and it scans emails using ClamAV.My vote: Sophos (but you're gonna need a Windows box to run the "Enterprise Console" on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both my university and workplace (of similar size to yours) use Sophos. They provide a number of centralised management tools, centralised update servers etc.
Check them out, www.sophos.com.au.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both my university and workplace ( of similar size to yours ) use Sophos .
They provide a number of centralised management tools , centralised update servers etc .
Check them out , www.sophos.com.au .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both my university and workplace (of similar size to yours) use Sophos.
They provide a number of centralised management tools, centralised update servers etc.
Check them out, www.sophos.com.au.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105</id>
	<title>ClamWin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about <a href="http://www.clamwin.com/" title="clamwin.com">http://www.clamwin.com/</a> [clamwin.com] ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about http : //www.clamwin.com/ [ clamwin.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about http://www.clamwin.com/ [clamwin.com] ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361015</id>
	<title>Re:Ill tell you what *not* to use</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1245250980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Five years ago I was telling clients that anti-malware software is like childhood immunizations. They aren't going to protect us from the next flu pandemic, but they'll make sure we don't get polio. Windows machines still need AV to keep them from getting reinfected with stuff we know about and have fixed, but you have to have additional defenses and processes in place to mitigate e.g. Conficker when it was a zero-day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Five years ago I was telling clients that anti-malware software is like childhood immunizations .
They are n't going to protect us from the next flu pandemic , but they 'll make sure we do n't get polio .
Windows machines still need AV to keep them from getting reinfected with stuff we know about and have fixed , but you have to have additional defenses and processes in place to mitigate e.g .
Conficker when it was a zero-day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five years ago I was telling clients that anti-malware software is like childhood immunizations.
They aren't going to protect us from the next flu pandemic, but they'll make sure we don't get polio.
Windows machines still need AV to keep them from getting reinfected with stuff we know about and have fixed, but you have to have additional defenses and processes in place to mitigate e.g.
Conficker when it was a zero-day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368809</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec is a RESOURCE HOG.  NOD32 is press good and we've never had issues like you've had.  How's your email proxy set up?  Do you even block dangerous email attachments?  Our network is locked-down starting at the firewall and continuing through the web proxy and email proxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec is a RESOURCE HOG .
NOD32 is press good and we 've never had issues like you 've had .
How 's your email proxy set up ?
Do you even block dangerous email attachments ?
Our network is locked-down starting at the firewall and continuing through the web proxy and email proxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec is a RESOURCE HOG.
NOD32 is press good and we've never had issues like you've had.
How's your email proxy set up?
Do you even block dangerous email attachments?
Our network is locked-down starting at the firewall and continuing through the web proxy and email proxy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364147</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called allowing users to have ring-0 rights to everything down to the hardware level.<br>It doesn't matter what AV software you run on Windows if they say yes to installing<br>a peace of malware/virus/toolbar/whatever it will install.</p><p>It's distressing to see how many techs can't reason this stuff out anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called allowing users to have ring-0 rights to everything down to the hardware level.It does n't matter what AV software you run on Windows if they say yes to installinga peace of malware/virus/toolbar/whatever it will install.It 's distressing to see how many techs ca n't reason this stuff out anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called allowing users to have ring-0 rights to everything down to the hardware level.It doesn't matter what AV software you run on Windows if they say yes to installinga peace of malware/virus/toolbar/whatever it will install.It's distressing to see how many techs can't reason this stuff out anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360367</id>
	<title>Centrally Managed?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1245247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20 Machines is \_not\_ a lot.  Just buy 20 seats of FOOBAR, set each instance of your chosen AV product to update itself automatically, run autoscans overnight or at lunch, and proactively quarantine/delete and loudly announce when events occur.  Even if everyone's not in the same building, this is good enough for just 20 machines.  Heck, it's good enough for 100 machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 Machines is \ _not \ _ a lot .
Just buy 20 seats of FOOBAR , set each instance of your chosen AV product to update itself automatically , run autoscans overnight or at lunch , and proactively quarantine/delete and loudly announce when events occur .
Even if everyone 's not in the same building , this is good enough for just 20 machines .
Heck , it 's good enough for 100 machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 Machines is \_not\_ a lot.
Just buy 20 seats of FOOBAR, set each instance of your chosen AV product to update itself automatically, run autoscans overnight or at lunch, and proactively quarantine/delete and loudly announce when events occur.
Even if everyone's not in the same building, this is good enough for just 20 machines.
Heck, it's good enough for 100 machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361503</id>
	<title>Multiple lines of defense</title>
	<author>boyfaceddog</author>
	<datestamp>1245253560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything I've ever read tells me that I can't do anti-virus work from a single point of defense. That's like building a wall to stop and invasion; you can't possibly build enough of it to stop everything.<br>First, route EVERYTHING coming in through a single gateway and put a virus scanner on that. Make sure it is updated as often as possible and remember to check it regularly. This is your castle guard.<br>Second, take away as many rights as you can from your users. Keep stripping rights off until they complain, then ask them what single right ALL of them need back and give it to them. Not a 100\% percent solution but you deal with people, not abstract ideas. This is like putting bars on windows and locks on doors.<br>Third, install an AV solution that you can set to auto-download virus defs from a remote server. This is the guard at the door of every building.<br>Fourth, and last, use a good stand-alone malware scanner to clean infected computers. We use MalwareBytes Malware Scanner. It is very effective and so simple a user can run it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>You won't stop everything but with all of these in place you'll stop most things. The one problem you will have are the laptops. Anyone with a laptop WILL be infected about once every six months. Its the price you pay.</p><p>By the way, my company runs Symantic Corporate. It catches maybe 90\% of the stuff that sneaks through the portal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything I 've ever read tells me that I ca n't do anti-virus work from a single point of defense .
That 's like building a wall to stop and invasion ; you ca n't possibly build enough of it to stop everything.First , route EVERYTHING coming in through a single gateway and put a virus scanner on that .
Make sure it is updated as often as possible and remember to check it regularly .
This is your castle guard.Second , take away as many rights as you can from your users .
Keep stripping rights off until they complain , then ask them what single right ALL of them need back and give it to them .
Not a 100 \ % percent solution but you deal with people , not abstract ideas .
This is like putting bars on windows and locks on doors.Third , install an AV solution that you can set to auto-download virus defs from a remote server .
This is the guard at the door of every building.Fourth , and last , use a good stand-alone malware scanner to clean infected computers .
We use MalwareBytes Malware Scanner .
It is very effective and so simple a user can run it .
: - ) You wo n't stop everything but with all of these in place you 'll stop most things .
The one problem you will have are the laptops .
Anyone with a laptop WILL be infected about once every six months .
Its the price you pay.By the way , my company runs Symantic Corporate .
It catches maybe 90 \ % of the stuff that sneaks through the portal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything I've ever read tells me that I can't do anti-virus work from a single point of defense.
That's like building a wall to stop and invasion; you can't possibly build enough of it to stop everything.First, route EVERYTHING coming in through a single gateway and put a virus scanner on that.
Make sure it is updated as often as possible and remember to check it regularly.
This is your castle guard.Second, take away as many rights as you can from your users.
Keep stripping rights off until they complain, then ask them what single right ALL of them need back and give it to them.
Not a 100\% percent solution but you deal with people, not abstract ideas.
This is like putting bars on windows and locks on doors.Third, install an AV solution that you can set to auto-download virus defs from a remote server.
This is the guard at the door of every building.Fourth, and last, use a good stand-alone malware scanner to clean infected computers.
We use MalwareBytes Malware Scanner.
It is very effective and so simple a user can run it.
:-)You won't stop everything but with all of these in place you'll stop most things.
The one problem you will have are the laptops.
Anyone with a laptop WILL be infected about once every six months.
Its the price you pay.By the way, my company runs Symantic Corporate.
It catches maybe 90\% of the stuff that sneaks through the portal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362393</id>
	<title>Re:Get a proper AD server</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1245257940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically. Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations (sorry samba guys; samba is good, but ultimately lags far behind what it's trying to imitate)</p><p>Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in "everything as root" mode; which, if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds (not that you couldn't do this manually, but with AD it's automatic network-wide).</p></div><p>As much as I dislike agreeing on this, I have to. If you're going to use a Microsoft environment you might as well use a Microsoft environment. When it's all set up properly it works like a charm. The only exception being Internet Explorer, of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically .
Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations ( sorry samba guys ; samba is good , but ultimately lags far behind what it 's trying to imitate ) Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in " everything as root " mode ; which , if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds ( not that you could n't do this manually , but with AD it 's automatic network-wide ) .As much as I dislike agreeing on this , I have to .
If you 're going to use a Microsoft environment you might as well use a Microsoft environment .
When it 's all set up properly it works like a charm .
The only exception being Internet Explorer , of course ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically.
Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations (sorry samba guys; samba is good, but ultimately lags far behind what it's trying to imitate)Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in "everything as root" mode; which, if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds (not that you couldn't do this manually, but with AD it's automatic network-wide).As much as I dislike agreeing on this, I have to.
If you're going to use a Microsoft environment you might as well use a Microsoft environment.
When it's all set up properly it works like a charm.
The only exception being Internet Explorer, of course ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361081</id>
	<title>Symantec is to expensive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec for Small Business (Multi-Tier, or Endpoint) is super affordable...</p><p>If you guys aren't willing on spending any money on your infrastructure why use anti-virus at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec for Small Business ( Multi-Tier , or Endpoint ) is super affordable...If you guys are n't willing on spending any money on your infrastructure why use anti-virus at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec for Small Business (Multi-Tier, or Endpoint) is super affordable...If you guys aren't willing on spending any money on your infrastructure why use anti-virus at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28389023</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at this www.testdrivevipre.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at this www.testdrivevipre.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at this www.testdrivevipre.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</id>
	<title>the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245178860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mean this to be smug or smartass</p><p>but we migrated the office to Mac OS X.  It took about 4 months to get everyone happy with the switch.</p><p>Now we're very happy with the solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean this to be smug or smartassbut we migrated the office to Mac OS X. It took about 4 months to get everyone happy with the switch.Now we 're very happy with the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean this to be smug or smartassbut we migrated the office to Mac OS X.  It took about 4 months to get everyone happy with the switch.Now we're very happy with the solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365933</id>
	<title>VMware View</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1245231480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might consider VMware view.  Each person has a thin client on their desk which controls a VM on a centralized cluster.  You can centrally manage everyones' VMs and control things like updates and anti-virus.</p><p> <a href="http://www.vmware.com/products/view/" title="vmware.com">http://www.vmware.com/products/view/</a> [vmware.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might consider VMware view .
Each person has a thin client on their desk which controls a VM on a centralized cluster .
You can centrally manage everyones ' VMs and control things like updates and anti-virus .
http : //www.vmware.com/products/view/ [ vmware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might consider VMware view.
Each person has a thin client on their desk which controls a VM on a centralized cluster.
You can centrally manage everyones' VMs and control things like updates and anti-virus.
http://www.vmware.com/products/view/ [vmware.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360219</id>
	<title>Re:Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use Sophos here too (75user, 4x sites). Tbh, it's become bloated over the last 2years. I would avoid for the time being. That said, I'm will still use it here. Too expensive to rollout an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use Sophos here too ( 75user , 4x sites ) .
Tbh , it 's become bloated over the last 2years .
I would avoid for the time being .
That said , I 'm will still use it here .
Too expensive to rollout an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use Sophos here too (75user, 4x sites).
Tbh, it's become bloated over the last 2years.
I would avoid for the time being.
That said, I'm will still use it here.
Too expensive to rollout an alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358941</id>
	<title>there is no AVG (mind control wave)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245231600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avoid AVG.</p><p>It's the only anti-virus that I've seen has prevented multiple (or any) windows machine from getting past the BIOS at boot.</p><p>I dealt with that episode by calmly mentioning to the 'clever teacher' who I knew had stuffed it up (installed AVG when SAV was our solution already installed) that: "some tool has installed a second anti-virus application. Who'd be so stupid to do that..."</p><p>As for locking stuff down: in schools we need almost anything to run, to enhance L.E.A.R.N.I.N.G.   And yes, it's completely unsupportable then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avoid AVG.It 's the only anti-virus that I 've seen has prevented multiple ( or any ) windows machine from getting past the BIOS at boot.I dealt with that episode by calmly mentioning to the 'clever teacher ' who I knew had stuffed it up ( installed AVG when SAV was our solution already installed ) that : " some tool has installed a second anti-virus application .
Who 'd be so stupid to do that... " As for locking stuff down : in schools we need almost anything to run , to enhance L.E.A.R.N.I.N.G .
And yes , it 's completely unsupportable then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avoid AVG.It's the only anti-virus that I've seen has prevented multiple (or any) windows machine from getting past the BIOS at boot.I dealt with that episode by calmly mentioning to the 'clever teacher' who I knew had stuffed it up (installed AVG when SAV was our solution already installed) that: "some tool has installed a second anti-virus application.
Who'd be so stupid to do that..."As for locking stuff down: in schools we need almost anything to run, to enhance L.E.A.R.N.I.N.G.
And yes, it's completely unsupportable then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358553</id>
	<title>F-Secure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're using F-Secure Client Security.<br>The reason: The central server can be run under linux...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>The drawback: F-Secure consumes comparatively much resources on the clients...</p><p>At least we had no virus (or similar) on our machines in the past years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're using F-Secure Client Security.The reason : The central server can be run under linux... ; ) The drawback : F-Secure consumes comparatively much resources on the clients...At least we had no virus ( or similar ) on our machines in the past years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're using F-Secure Client Security.The reason: The central server can be run under linux... ;)The drawback: F-Secure consumes comparatively much resources on the clients...At least we had no virus (or similar) on our machines in the past years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361435</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outstanding product, low footprint, works with Windows, UNIX, Linux, AIX, Solaris, MAC OSX, etc. etc.</p><p>A true B2B product.  No I dont work for Sophos, but I have supported it for the past 5 years and it ROCKS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outstanding product , low footprint , works with Windows , UNIX , Linux , AIX , Solaris , MAC OSX , etc .
etc.A true B2B product .
No I dont work for Sophos , but I have supported it for the past 5 years and it ROCKS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outstanding product, low footprint, works with Windows, UNIX, Linux, AIX, Solaris, MAC OSX, etc.
etc.A true B2B product.
No I dont work for Sophos, but I have supported it for the past 5 years and it ROCKS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358407</id>
	<title>Re:NOD32 Antivirus and NOS32 Remote Administrator</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1245181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOD32 works fantastically well, although the licenses are comparatively more expensive when compared to some of the competition that's in the 'same league' (Eg. Kaspersky)<br> <br>I haven't used the remote administrator to manage NOD32 clients (We don't have enough here), but after scanning thousands of PCs, I can vouch for the quality of NOD32. It's anecdotal, but I concur with many of the online results which show NOD32 has near-perfect detection rates and very low false positives. We keep trying different scanners, but NOD32 seems to do the best job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOD32 works fantastically well , although the licenses are comparatively more expensive when compared to some of the competition that 's in the 'same league ' ( Eg .
Kaspersky ) I have n't used the remote administrator to manage NOD32 clients ( We do n't have enough here ) , but after scanning thousands of PCs , I can vouch for the quality of NOD32 .
It 's anecdotal , but I concur with many of the online results which show NOD32 has near-perfect detection rates and very low false positives .
We keep trying different scanners , but NOD32 seems to do the best job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOD32 works fantastically well, although the licenses are comparatively more expensive when compared to some of the competition that's in the 'same league' (Eg.
Kaspersky) I haven't used the remote administrator to manage NOD32 clients (We don't have enough here), but after scanning thousands of PCs, I can vouch for the quality of NOD32.
It's anecdotal, but I concur with many of the online results which show NOD32 has near-perfect detection rates and very low false positives.
We keep trying different scanners, but NOD32 seems to do the best job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358193</id>
	<title>McAfee Total Protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>McAfee Total Protection is web-based... All clients grab configuration info and updates from the web. You can manage AV from a web portal, run reports from there, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee Total Protection is web-based... All clients grab configuration info and updates from the web .
You can manage AV from a web portal , run reports from there , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee Total Protection is web-based... All clients grab configuration info and updates from the web.
You can manage AV from a web portal, run reports from there, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358567</id>
	<title>A good and fast volume shadow policy...</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1245270060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...may be your most secure bet. No matter what antivirus solution you implement, given enough exposure to the Internet, one of the machines will eventually get infected in the end. So, unless you're willing to migrate your entire office to Linux, the safest solution would be frequent volume shadowing, maybe combined with a good antivirus such as AntiVir (which even has a Linux version IIRC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...may be your most secure bet .
No matter what antivirus solution you implement , given enough exposure to the Internet , one of the machines will eventually get infected in the end .
So , unless you 're willing to migrate your entire office to Linux , the safest solution would be frequent volume shadowing , maybe combined with a good antivirus such as AntiVir ( which even has a Linux version IIRC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...may be your most secure bet.
No matter what antivirus solution you implement, given enough exposure to the Internet, one of the machines will eventually get infected in the end.
So, unless you're willing to migrate your entire office to Linux, the safest solution would be frequent volume shadowing, maybe combined with a good antivirus such as AntiVir (which even has a Linux version IIRC).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364611</id>
	<title>Don't use CA E-Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At my work place we call it Anti-trust or E-trust me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At my work place we call it Anti-trust or E-trust me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my work place we call it Anti-trust or E-trust me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361123</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>ez151</author>
	<datestamp>1245251580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always see these types of comments and wonder what Nazi fantasy world they do IT work in.....</p><p>Yeah I am gonna tell the VP of Sales while he is in Malaysia,that no cant load his USB stick with his only copy of the presentation he went there for that will save our company from going bankrupt?!?</p><p>Most users are a mix between this example and a admin assistant who only needs Word and yes we have different permissions for both types of users.</p><p>What I am getting at is when you lockdown machines your calls in go up for service and special considerations  while the virus malware calls in stay the same.</p><p>Thats my experience, you ALWAYS get the virus and malware calls, no matter now lockeddown a machine is.</p><p>My 2 cents and Avira anti-vir works quite well IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always see these types of comments and wonder what Nazi fantasy world they do IT work in.....Yeah I am gon na tell the VP of Sales while he is in Malaysia,that no cant load his USB stick with his only copy of the presentation he went there for that will save our company from going bankrupt ? !
? Most users are a mix between this example and a admin assistant who only needs Word and yes we have different permissions for both types of users.What I am getting at is when you lockdown machines your calls in go up for service and special considerations while the virus malware calls in stay the same.Thats my experience , you ALWAYS get the virus and malware calls , no matter now lockeddown a machine is.My 2 cents and Avira anti-vir works quite well IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always see these types of comments and wonder what Nazi fantasy world they do IT work in.....Yeah I am gonna tell the VP of Sales while he is in Malaysia,that no cant load his USB stick with his only copy of the presentation he went there for that will save our company from going bankrupt?!
?Most users are a mix between this example and a admin assistant who only needs Word and yes we have different permissions for both types of users.What I am getting at is when you lockdown machines your calls in go up for service and special considerations  while the virus malware calls in stay the same.Thats my experience, you ALWAYS get the virus and malware calls, no matter now lockeddown a machine is.My 2 cents and Avira anti-vir works quite well IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358749</id>
	<title>Re:One proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in a 10 WS environment with 2 linux servers, i am using a proxy as the only exit to the internet (filtering sites also), and using local email server.<br>That reduced the viroses to none.</p><p>Incoming emails and such are filtered and also people is aware that they shall only use trusted usb sticks and open trusted email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in a 10 WS environment with 2 linux servers , i am using a proxy as the only exit to the internet ( filtering sites also ) , and using local email server.That reduced the viroses to none.Incoming emails and such are filtered and also people is aware that they shall only use trusted usb sticks and open trusted email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a 10 WS environment with 2 linux servers, i am using a proxy as the only exit to the internet (filtering sites also), and using local email server.That reduced the viroses to none.Incoming emails and such are filtered and also people is aware that they shall only use trusted usb sticks and open trusted email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360305</id>
	<title>Re:We use AVG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the AVG firewall does very poor things for network printing (still).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the AVG firewall does very poor things for network printing ( still ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the AVG firewall does very poor things for network printing (still).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359817</id>
	<title>Re:One proposal</title>
	<author>thegoldenear</author>
	<datestamp>1245242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you disable USB ports, how do you attach a keyboard and mouse!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you disable USB ports , how do you attach a keyboard and mouse !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you disable USB ports, how do you attach a keyboard and mouse!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358861</id>
	<title>Deep Freeze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245230520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use DF on all my workstations. Although not full proof and some fairly knowledgeable IT people can circumvent the security, the normal employee will not be able. It also has a management console where you can freeze/unfreeze workstations or update DF clients.</p><p>This is not AV, but this may work for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use DF on all my workstations .
Although not full proof and some fairly knowledgeable IT people can circumvent the security , the normal employee will not be able .
It also has a management console where you can freeze/unfreeze workstations or update DF clients.This is not AV , but this may work for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use DF on all my workstations.
Although not full proof and some fairly knowledgeable IT people can circumvent the security, the normal employee will not be able.
It also has a management console where you can freeze/unfreeze workstations or update DF clients.This is not AV, but this may work for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28378449</id>
	<title>Anything but Norman Virus Control</title>
	<author>Nesman64</author>
	<datestamp>1245355800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work with a German-owned company that uses Norman Virus Control.  From time to time it kills machines, but its biggest offense is the frequent false positives.  When your antivirus deletes user32.dll on half a dozen remote machines without a remote option to restore the file, and the mothership tells you to just deal with it, you lose all good will.</p><p>Also, it's named like a bootleg ripoff of my <i>other</i> favorite cpu-hog and randomly pops up a splash screen over the middle third of your monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with a German-owned company that uses Norman Virus Control .
From time to time it kills machines , but its biggest offense is the frequent false positives .
When your antivirus deletes user32.dll on half a dozen remote machines without a remote option to restore the file , and the mothership tells you to just deal with it , you lose all good will.Also , it 's named like a bootleg ripoff of my other favorite cpu-hog and randomly pops up a splash screen over the middle third of your monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with a German-owned company that uses Norman Virus Control.
From time to time it kills machines, but its biggest offense is the frequent false positives.
When your antivirus deletes user32.dll on half a dozen remote machines without a remote option to restore the file, and the mothership tells you to just deal with it, you lose all good will.Also, it's named like a bootleg ripoff of my other favorite cpu-hog and randomly pops up a splash screen over the middle third of your monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359899</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>klubar</author>
	<datestamp>1245243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that sensible polices can avoid most viruses.  Some policies can be enforce automatically, and others by management.  Top of the list, is not to allow anyone to run as administrator on their machine.  By now, all the software runs as a regular user--and giving employees administrator rights is just silly.  Also on the list, is prohibiting employees from downloading or installing software--decide on a standard build and stick with it for everyone.<br> <br>Group policies (even without a domain controller) are your friend--when you set up your machine, put down fairly restrictive policies to control access.  We even lockdown the desktop and screen saver to communicate a clear message that the PCs are for work purposes.<br> <br>Beyond that, we use AVG network edition--don't love it, but relatively easy to manage and seems to do a decent job.  It can be remotely adminstered and doesn't really crap up the machine with random warnings and messages like other AV products.  Dont' install AVG (or any other) firewall as they all seem to do a lousy job--and firewalls are better enforced at the paremeter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that sensible polices can avoid most viruses .
Some policies can be enforce automatically , and others by management .
Top of the list , is not to allow anyone to run as administrator on their machine .
By now , all the software runs as a regular user--and giving employees administrator rights is just silly .
Also on the list , is prohibiting employees from downloading or installing software--decide on a standard build and stick with it for everyone .
Group policies ( even without a domain controller ) are your friend--when you set up your machine , put down fairly restrictive policies to control access .
We even lockdown the desktop and screen saver to communicate a clear message that the PCs are for work purposes .
Beyond that , we use AVG network edition--do n't love it , but relatively easy to manage and seems to do a decent job .
It can be remotely adminstered and does n't really crap up the machine with random warnings and messages like other AV products .
Dont ' install AVG ( or any other ) firewall as they all seem to do a lousy job--and firewalls are better enforced at the paremeter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that sensible polices can avoid most viruses.
Some policies can be enforce automatically, and others by management.
Top of the list, is not to allow anyone to run as administrator on their machine.
By now, all the software runs as a regular user--and giving employees administrator rights is just silly.
Also on the list, is prohibiting employees from downloading or installing software--decide on a standard build and stick with it for everyone.
Group policies (even without a domain controller) are your friend--when you set up your machine, put down fairly restrictive policies to control access.
We even lockdown the desktop and screen saver to communicate a clear message that the PCs are for work purposes.
Beyond that, we use AVG network edition--don't love it, but relatively easy to manage and seems to do a decent job.
It can be remotely adminstered and doesn't really crap up the machine with random warnings and messages like other AV products.
Dont' install AVG (or any other) firewall as they all seem to do a lousy job--and firewalls are better enforced at the paremeter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361329</id>
	<title>Practical Advice?</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1245252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had the same experience with AV as many  others.  No matter the product, there's infected machines.<br>None of this can be done without meaningful support from the entire executive staff because it will cause some disruptions.</p><p>The DIY solution goes something like this,</p><p>HTTP Antivirus Proxy: <a href="http://www.server-side.de/" title="server-side.de">http://www.server-side.de/</a> [server-side.de]<br>Switching users to Firefox.  (I know, I know, the IE users will cry like babies.  So this one will probably  not fly.)<br>Tighten up your firewall rules.  You can't allow any connection outbound.  Allow specific ports.<br>You are running snort right????  This is a very, very useful tool to track what's going outbound.<br>Get your win32 users out of Admin mode if possible.</p><p>I test machines by running xubuntu in live CD mode, installing java, then finding an online AV scanner that uses java to do their scanning.  Time consuming, but they chose the enormous hidden costs of adopting Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had the same experience with AV as many others .
No matter the product , there 's infected machines.None of this can be done without meaningful support from the entire executive staff because it will cause some disruptions.The DIY solution goes something like this,HTTP Antivirus Proxy : http : //www.server-side.de/ [ server-side.de ] Switching users to Firefox .
( I know , I know , the IE users will cry like babies .
So this one will probably not fly .
) Tighten up your firewall rules .
You ca n't allow any connection outbound .
Allow specific ports.You are running snort right ? ? ? ?
This is a very , very useful tool to track what 's going outbound.Get your win32 users out of Admin mode if possible.I test machines by running xubuntu in live CD mode , installing java , then finding an online AV scanner that uses java to do their scanning .
Time consuming , but they chose the enormous hidden costs of adopting Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had the same experience with AV as many  others.
No matter the product, there's infected machines.None of this can be done without meaningful support from the entire executive staff because it will cause some disruptions.The DIY solution goes something like this,HTTP Antivirus Proxy: http://www.server-side.de/ [server-side.de]Switching users to Firefox.
(I know, I know, the IE users will cry like babies.
So this one will probably  not fly.
)Tighten up your firewall rules.
You can't allow any connection outbound.
Allow specific ports.You are running snort right????
This is a very, very useful tool to track what's going outbound.Get your win32 users out of Admin mode if possible.I test machines by running xubuntu in live CD mode, installing java, then finding an online AV scanner that uses java to do their scanning.
Time consuming, but they chose the enormous hidden costs of adopting Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360421</id>
	<title>SEP too expensive?</title>
	<author>beavis88</author>
	<datestamp>1245247380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? I don't remember the exact figures, but I believe we're paying under $30/seat for 50 licenses. It's really hard for me to believe it's not worth somewhere in the $1000/yr ballpark to have decent AV protection for your company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
I do n't remember the exact figures , but I believe we 're paying under $ 30/seat for 50 licenses .
It 's really hard for me to believe it 's not worth somewhere in the $ 1000/yr ballpark to have decent AV protection for your company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
I don't remember the exact figures, but I believe we're paying under $30/seat for 50 licenses.
It's really hard for me to believe it's not worth somewhere in the $1000/yr ballpark to have decent AV protection for your company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362277</id>
	<title>Vipre Enterprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.vipreenterprise.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.vipreenterprise.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.vipreenterprise.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358755</id>
	<title>Viper Antivirus</title>
	<author>loddington</author>
	<datestamp>1245272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am currently testing Viper Antivirus <a href="http://www.vipreantivirus.com/" title="vipreantivirus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vipreantivirus.com/</a> [vipreantivirus.com] in a similar sized group. So far it seems very fast to scan, none of the users are complaining about extra load and it is easy to administer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am currently testing Viper Antivirus http : //www.vipreantivirus.com/ [ vipreantivirus.com ] in a similar sized group .
So far it seems very fast to scan , none of the users are complaining about extra load and it is easy to administer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am currently testing Viper Antivirus http://www.vipreantivirus.com/ [vipreantivirus.com] in a similar sized group.
So far it seems very fast to scan, none of the users are complaining about extra load and it is easy to administer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360165</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1245245520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using Sophos <a href="http://www.sophos.com/" title="sophos.com">http://www.sophos.com/</a> [sophos.com] in an 60-70 machine environment, and have had good luck with their products. They don't seem to be the insane memory hogs that Mcafee and Symantec are.</p><p>Some of the other posters are correct, a 'proper' AD server that you can push policy from gives you a nice set of options for managing machines. 20 doesn't sound like that many systems, until you're the guy supporting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using Sophos http : //www.sophos.com/ [ sophos.com ] in an 60-70 machine environment , and have had good luck with their products .
They do n't seem to be the insane memory hogs that Mcafee and Symantec are.Some of the other posters are correct , a 'proper ' AD server that you can push policy from gives you a nice set of options for managing machines .
20 does n't sound like that many systems , until you 're the guy supporting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using Sophos http://www.sophos.com/ [sophos.com] in an 60-70 machine environment, and have had good luck with their products.
They don't seem to be the insane memory hogs that Mcafee and Symantec are.Some of the other posters are correct, a 'proper' AD server that you can push policy from gives you a nice set of options for managing machines.
20 doesn't sound like that many systems, until you're the guy supporting them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361509</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Santana</author>
	<datestamp>1245253620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We got tired of trying antivirus software. We're now migrating to Ubuntu.</p><p>Most of the computers are used for very basic stuff for which there are open source equivalents (web surfing, e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets, mail merge.)</p><p>For the special ones with in-house Windows-only software, we are either using wine or setting up Terminal Services servers.</p><p>Finally, we're pushing Macs for the bosses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We got tired of trying antivirus software .
We 're now migrating to Ubuntu.Most of the computers are used for very basic stuff for which there are open source equivalents ( web surfing , e-mail , word processing , spreadsheets , mail merge .
) For the special ones with in-house Windows-only software , we are either using wine or setting up Terminal Services servers.Finally , we 're pushing Macs for the bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We got tired of trying antivirus software.
We're now migrating to Ubuntu.Most of the computers are used for very basic stuff for which there are open source equivalents (web surfing, e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets, mail merge.
)For the special ones with in-house Windows-only software, we are either using wine or setting up Terminal Services servers.Finally, we're pushing Macs for the bosses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358981</id>
	<title>Re:It depends</title>
	<author>greyblack</author>
	<datestamp>1245232140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would not work in your company for a million dollars a year. Nazi IT regulations like that never accounts for every aspects of a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not work in your company for a million dollars a year .
Nazi IT regulations like that never accounts for every aspects of a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not work in your company for a million dollars a year.
Nazi IT regulations like that never accounts for every aspects of a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361109</id>
	<title>Sandboxes.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?</p></div><p>Run all software not approved by the IT department in a sandbox. These can range from Sandboxie or FreeBSD's jail all the way up to full-scale virtualization such as Xen or VirtualBox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done ? Run all software not approved by the IT department in a sandbox .
These can range from Sandboxie or FreeBSD 's jail all the way up to full-scale virtualization such as Xen or VirtualBox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what policy would you advice for organisations where people need to be able to download and execute arbitrary software in order to get their work done?Run all software not approved by the IT department in a sandbox.
These can range from Sandboxie or FreeBSD's jail all the way up to full-scale virtualization such as Xen or VirtualBox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361561</id>
	<title>Re:Trend Micro</title>
	<author>ReverendLoki</author>
	<datestamp>1245253920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm managing a 30-some some computer network with their "Worry Free Business Advanced" suite, and it's great.  Central web interface control over all machines, easy to read reports, integrates well with our mail server, monitors network traffic for suspicious activity, automatically generates and e-mails you reports.  The cost is, per machine, about what you would expect to pay to buy some basic residential oriented solution for each machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm managing a 30-some some computer network with their " Worry Free Business Advanced " suite , and it 's great .
Central web interface control over all machines , easy to read reports , integrates well with our mail server , monitors network traffic for suspicious activity , automatically generates and e-mails you reports .
The cost is , per machine , about what you would expect to pay to buy some basic residential oriented solution for each machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm managing a 30-some some computer network with their "Worry Free Business Advanced" suite, and it's great.
Central web interface control over all machines, easy to read reports, integrates well with our mail server, monitors network traffic for suspicious activity, automatically generates and e-mails you reports.
The cost is, per machine, about what you would expect to pay to buy some basic residential oriented solution for each machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360163</id>
	<title>Symantec Endpoint Protection</title>
	<author>adnd74</author>
	<datestamp>1245245520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SEP is the best protection you can buy and comes with excellent support. The higher price pays off in the time that you don't have to spend to administer your security (or remove threats). Regardless of the security solution you chose: keep all software patched and up to date, secure your shares, kill auto-run, firewall the perimeter of your network, and please don't give your users admin access<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

----
Q: how much damage could any threat do?
A: none if you're patched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>SEP is the best protection you can buy and comes with excellent support .
The higher price pays off in the time that you do n't have to spend to administer your security ( or remove threats ) .
Regardless of the security solution you chose : keep all software patched and up to date , secure your shares , kill auto-run , firewall the perimeter of your network , and please do n't give your users admin access .. . ---- Q : how much damage could any threat do ?
A : none if you 're patched ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SEP is the best protection you can buy and comes with excellent support.
The higher price pays off in the time that you don't have to spend to administer your security (or remove threats).
Regardless of the security solution you chose: keep all software patched and up to date, secure your shares, kill auto-run, firewall the perimeter of your network, and please don't give your users admin access ...

----
Q: how much damage could any threat do?
A: none if you're patched ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28363037</id>
	<title>Try Vipre</title>
	<author>randoms</author>
	<datestamp>1245261120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been testing AV solutions for the same setup; Windows clients, samba server, no AD or domain. AVG worked great for the first couple years, but sometime in 2008 they took a huge turn for the worse. Their support, even enterprise, is abysmal and absurd (email only!) Their more recent products are such huge resource hogs that most of my users just uninstalled it as it made their workstations unusable. Month's of round and round with email support and no solution.</p><p>I've tested most of the products mentioned here, nod32, Avast, Kaspersky, etc. I finally stumbled on a pretty new entrant to the space, Vipre, by sunbeltsoftware, <a href="http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/" title="sunbeltsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/</a> [sunbeltsoftware.com] . Support has been fantastic, and I'm just using a trial version. The admin interface is modern, quick, and well thought out. Most of the other admin interfaces seem like an afterthought or an engineering prototype. The test users are happy so far. And it's cleaned up a few severe threats that were not found by AVG.</p><p>Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with these guys at all. I am just a happy trial user, so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been testing AV solutions for the same setup ; Windows clients , samba server , no AD or domain .
AVG worked great for the first couple years , but sometime in 2008 they took a huge turn for the worse .
Their support , even enterprise , is abysmal and absurd ( email only !
) Their more recent products are such huge resource hogs that most of my users just uninstalled it as it made their workstations unusable .
Month 's of round and round with email support and no solution.I 've tested most of the products mentioned here , nod32 , Avast , Kaspersky , etc .
I finally stumbled on a pretty new entrant to the space , Vipre , by sunbeltsoftware , http : //www.sunbeltsoftware.com/ [ sunbeltsoftware.com ] .
Support has been fantastic , and I 'm just using a trial version .
The admin interface is modern , quick , and well thought out .
Most of the other admin interfaces seem like an afterthought or an engineering prototype .
The test users are happy so far .
And it 's cleaned up a few severe threats that were not found by AVG.Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with these guys at all .
I am just a happy trial user , so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been testing AV solutions for the same setup; Windows clients, samba server, no AD or domain.
AVG worked great for the first couple years, but sometime in 2008 they took a huge turn for the worse.
Their support, even enterprise, is abysmal and absurd (email only!
) Their more recent products are such huge resource hogs that most of my users just uninstalled it as it made their workstations unusable.
Month's of round and round with email support and no solution.I've tested most of the products mentioned here, nod32, Avast, Kaspersky, etc.
I finally stumbled on a pretty new entrant to the space, Vipre, by sunbeltsoftware, http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/ [sunbeltsoftware.com] .
Support has been fantastic, and I'm just using a trial version.
The admin interface is modern, quick, and well thought out.
Most of the other admin interfaces seem like an afterthought or an engineering prototype.
The test users are happy so far.
And it's cleaned up a few severe threats that were not found by AVG.Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with these guys at all.
I am just a happy trial user, so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358591</id>
	<title>Sophos Enterprise Console</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our company uses Sophos products and manages some 300-400 computer connections via the Sophos Enterprise Console.  This solution is far from perfect though.  On the plus side, we are able to tell at a glance which computer on our network is infected or suspected and be able to act accordingly. We have Sophos configured to warn the user of possible threats and to call the helpdesk for assistance with removing these threats. On the down side, we have to constantly add new app. chksums whenever a new version of software comes up. We have one person in our IT department dedicating about half his work day to "Sophos duties." <a href="http://www.sophos.com/products/enterprise/" title="sophos.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sophos.com/products/enterprise/</a> [sophos.com]
</p><p>
Our company has decided to invest into managed routers that will limit the amount of spam/wurms, etc.  Currently we are looking into Fortinet's line of routers.</p><p>
Regardless of which security software you go with, implementing best security practices is really the only way to go.  Locking down the computer, restricting or limiting admin access, applying automatic updates, user education, etc. <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?q=best+security+practices" title="google.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.ca/search?q=best+security+practices</a> [google.ca]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our company uses Sophos products and manages some 300-400 computer connections via the Sophos Enterprise Console .
This solution is far from perfect though .
On the plus side , we are able to tell at a glance which computer on our network is infected or suspected and be able to act accordingly .
We have Sophos configured to warn the user of possible threats and to call the helpdesk for assistance with removing these threats .
On the down side , we have to constantly add new app .
chksums whenever a new version of software comes up .
We have one person in our IT department dedicating about half his work day to " Sophos duties .
" http : //www.sophos.com/products/enterprise/ [ sophos.com ] Our company has decided to invest into managed routers that will limit the amount of spam/wurms , etc .
Currently we are looking into Fortinet 's line of routers .
Regardless of which security software you go with , implementing best security practices is really the only way to go .
Locking down the computer , restricting or limiting admin access , applying automatic updates , user education , etc .
http : //www.google.ca/search ? q = best + security + practices [ google.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our company uses Sophos products and manages some 300-400 computer connections via the Sophos Enterprise Console.
This solution is far from perfect though.
On the plus side, we are able to tell at a glance which computer on our network is infected or suspected and be able to act accordingly.
We have Sophos configured to warn the user of possible threats and to call the helpdesk for assistance with removing these threats.
On the down side, we have to constantly add new app.
chksums whenever a new version of software comes up.
We have one person in our IT department dedicating about half his work day to "Sophos duties.
" http://www.sophos.com/products/enterprise/ [sophos.com]

Our company has decided to invest into managed routers that will limit the amount of spam/wurms, etc.
Currently we are looking into Fortinet's line of routers.
Regardless of which security software you go with, implementing best security practices is really the only way to go.
Locking down the computer, restricting or limiting admin access, applying automatic updates, user education, etc.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=best+security+practices [google.ca]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359345</id>
	<title>No single effective solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there is no single AV solution?</p><p>Seems to me that each product has "something" to offer and spreading multiple products or free tools throughout your network will catch the different infections.</p><p>Or having 5 different AV tools could just make your life as an admin harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there is no single AV solution ? Seems to me that each product has " something " to offer and spreading multiple products or free tools throughout your network will catch the different infections.Or having 5 different AV tools could just make your life as an admin harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there is no single AV solution?Seems to me that each product has "something" to offer and spreading multiple products or free tools throughout your network will catch the different infections.Or having 5 different AV tools could just make your life as an admin harder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359561</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing here, but...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245239820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As well as windows update, don't forget to keep all the other applications on your workstations up to date...<br>WSUS will handle msoffice and other ms apps, but you'll need to buy an expensive management application if you want to keep things like adobe reader updated (which makes them a perfect malware target)... You can't use the update functions inside these third party apps, you have to manage it centrally.</p><p>Firefox is all well and good, except that a lot of malware these days targets other apps, like msoffice files, trojan pdf files etc... Most users will happily open pdf or msoffice files without thinking and firefox won't help you. Ditto for infected removable media, especially with autorun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As well as windows update , do n't forget to keep all the other applications on your workstations up to date...WSUS will handle msoffice and other ms apps , but you 'll need to buy an expensive management application if you want to keep things like adobe reader updated ( which makes them a perfect malware target ) ... You ca n't use the update functions inside these third party apps , you have to manage it centrally.Firefox is all well and good , except that a lot of malware these days targets other apps , like msoffice files , trojan pdf files etc... Most users will happily open pdf or msoffice files without thinking and firefox wo n't help you .
Ditto for infected removable media , especially with autorun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As well as windows update, don't forget to keep all the other applications on your workstations up to date...WSUS will handle msoffice and other ms apps, but you'll need to buy an expensive management application if you want to keep things like adobe reader updated (which makes them a perfect malware target)... You can't use the update functions inside these third party apps, you have to manage it centrally.Firefox is all well and good, except that a lot of malware these days targets other apps, like msoffice files, trojan pdf files etc... Most users will happily open pdf or msoffice files without thinking and firefox won't help you.
Ditto for infected removable media, especially with autorun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365457</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Antivirus suits are the <i>last</i> line of defense. Not the first!</p><p>The first is the user and sensible usage policies. When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.</p></div><p>THIS.</p><p>Seriously, i've used all of the AV products mentioned here and more on a 300+ host, 20+ server network and our best protection has come from a good firewall with AV/Spy protection (we use Sonicwall) and Safend endpoint protection. This is a software that is deployed to the desktops from a server that allows your users to still use the usb ports and let people burn dvd's, but with device based authentication. Then add literally any comprehensive security suite (AV, mal/spy, browser protection) on the desktops (We ended up sticking with BitDefender for the last year, but are already looking at Sunbelt VIPRE).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus suits are the last line of defense .
Not the first ! The first is the user and sensible usage policies .
When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random , you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.THIS.Seriously , i 've used all of the AV products mentioned here and more on a 300 + host , 20 + server network and our best protection has come from a good firewall with AV/Spy protection ( we use Sonicwall ) and Safend endpoint protection .
This is a software that is deployed to the desktops from a server that allows your users to still use the usb ports and let people burn dvd 's , but with device based authentication .
Then add literally any comprehensive security suite ( AV , mal/spy , browser protection ) on the desktops ( We ended up sticking with BitDefender for the last year , but are already looking at Sunbelt VIPRE ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus suits are the last line of defense.
Not the first!The first is the user and sensible usage policies.
When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.THIS.Seriously, i've used all of the AV products mentioned here and more on a 300+ host, 20+ server network and our best protection has come from a good firewall with AV/Spy protection (we use Sonicwall) and Safend endpoint protection.
This is a software that is deployed to the desktops from a server that allows your users to still use the usb ports and let people burn dvd's, but with device based authentication.
Then add literally any comprehensive security suite (AV, mal/spy, browser protection) on the desktops (We ended up sticking with BitDefender for the last year, but are already looking at Sunbelt VIPRE).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359923</id>
	<title>Vipre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vipre by sunbelt software is the only AV/AS software i will use today.</p><p>so lightweight you wont even know it is running and so good it has detected and removed everything i have thrown at it to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vipre by sunbelt software is the only AV/AS software i will use today.so lightweight you wont even know it is running and so good it has detected and removed everything i have thrown at it to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vipre by sunbelt software is the only AV/AS software i will use today.so lightweight you wont even know it is running and so good it has detected and removed everything i have thrown at it to date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359403</id>
	<title>F-Secure protection Service for Businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F-Secure has the PSB product (Protection Service for Businesses), which is meant for 10-100 seat small companies. FSAV PSB is centrally managed via an admin webpage and offers remote installation for Windows workstation clients. It contains antivirus, anti-spyware, personal firewall and DeepGuard 2.0 a kind of behaviour-based system control and network control.</p><p>F-Secure's admin and user interfaces are easy to use and logial and protection level is really good, but the protection modules have higher than average CPU/RAM resource consumption, so its recommended for modern machines, like 1,6-2GHz CPU minimum and ideally 768MB-1GB RAM or up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F-Secure has the PSB product ( Protection Service for Businesses ) , which is meant for 10-100 seat small companies .
FSAV PSB is centrally managed via an admin webpage and offers remote installation for Windows workstation clients .
It contains antivirus , anti-spyware , personal firewall and DeepGuard 2.0 a kind of behaviour-based system control and network control.F-Secure 's admin and user interfaces are easy to use and logial and protection level is really good , but the protection modules have higher than average CPU/RAM resource consumption , so its recommended for modern machines , like 1,6-2GHz CPU minimum and ideally 768MB-1GB RAM or up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F-Secure has the PSB product (Protection Service for Businesses), which is meant for 10-100 seat small companies.
FSAV PSB is centrally managed via an admin webpage and offers remote installation for Windows workstation clients.
It contains antivirus, anti-spyware, personal firewall and DeepGuard 2.0 a kind of behaviour-based system control and network control.F-Secure's admin and user interfaces are easy to use and logial and protection level is really good, but the protection modules have higher than average CPU/RAM resource consumption, so its recommended for modern machines, like 1,6-2GHz CPU minimum and ideally 768MB-1GB RAM or up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358855</id>
	<title>Get a proper AD server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245230460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically. Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations (sorry samba guys; samba is good, but ultimately lags far behind what it's trying to imitate)</p><p>Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in "everything as root" mode; which, if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds (not that you couldn't do this manually, but with AD it's automatic network-wide).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically .
Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations ( sorry samba guys ; samba is good , but ultimately lags far behind what it 's trying to imitate ) Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in " everything as root " mode ; which , if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds ( not that you could n't do this manually , but with AD it 's automatic network-wide ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then use group policies to push out AV updates automatically &amp; lock down the desktops remotely and automatically.
Samba is a half-cut replacement for a proper Windows Server when it comes to Windows workstations (sorry samba guys; samba is good, but ultimately lags far behind what it's trying to imitate)Windows XP is only really so vulnerable to viruses because normally it runs in "everything as root" mode; which, if you had a proper Windows server you could change in seconds (not that you couldn't do this manually, but with AD it's automatic network-wide).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358921</id>
	<title>GDATA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245231360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just replaced our antivirus software (Kaspersky) on 15 XP machines (no Active Directory, 2003 Server) with G-Data. Has an admin app that runs on the 2003 Server (won't run on Linux, but could be installed on one of the clients) that pushes definitions and updates to the clients as well as handling alerts and surveillance. Not the cheapest antivirus out there but I've been very impressed so far, worth a look. The day it was installed it turned up all kinds of viruses that Kaspersky seemed not to have been bothered with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just replaced our antivirus software ( Kaspersky ) on 15 XP machines ( no Active Directory , 2003 Server ) with G-Data .
Has an admin app that runs on the 2003 Server ( wo n't run on Linux , but could be installed on one of the clients ) that pushes definitions and updates to the clients as well as handling alerts and surveillance .
Not the cheapest antivirus out there but I 've been very impressed so far , worth a look .
The day it was installed it turned up all kinds of viruses that Kaspersky seemed not to have been bothered with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just replaced our antivirus software (Kaspersky) on 15 XP machines (no Active Directory, 2003 Server) with G-Data.
Has an admin app that runs on the 2003 Server (won't run on Linux, but could be installed on one of the clients) that pushes definitions and updates to the clients as well as handling alerts and surveillance.
Not the cheapest antivirus out there but I've been very impressed so far, worth a look.
The day it was installed it turned up all kinds of viruses that Kaspersky seemed not to have been bothered with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115</id>
	<title>NOD32 Antivirus and NOS32 Remote Administrator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do it without the server, and install NOD32 antivirus on the clients, with NOD32 Remote Administrator to manage them. We put this system in recently and it's very very effective. Synchronized our antivirus product and definitions quickly, and reported infections that had slipped past the unmanaged installation on one machine (it hadn't been updated for a while...). No, you don't have to install it on a Windows Server OS (although we did).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it without the server , and install NOD32 antivirus on the clients , with NOD32 Remote Administrator to manage them .
We put this system in recently and it 's very very effective .
Synchronized our antivirus product and definitions quickly , and reported infections that had slipped past the unmanaged installation on one machine ( it had n't been updated for a while... ) .
No , you do n't have to install it on a Windows Server OS ( although we did ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it without the server, and install NOD32 antivirus on the clients, with NOD32 Remote Administrator to manage them.
We put this system in recently and it's very very effective.
Synchronized our antivirus product and definitions quickly, and reported infections that had slipped past the unmanaged installation on one machine (it hadn't been updated for a while...).
No, you don't have to install it on a Windows Server OS (although we did).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28367471</id>
	<title>Kaspersky Administration Kit</title>
	<author>Master of Transhuman</author>
	<datestamp>1245239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's complicated, but it runs on Windows XP. It pushes out the programs to the client PCs (if they're Windows XP, Home is a no-go due to the Guest account force), as well as updates. Downloads updates from the KAV servers, caches them, pushes them out. Has all kinds of reports on detected infections, machines that haven't been updated lately or are off the network, etc.</p><p>Comes with the business version of the AV product, server or workstation, no extra charge. Just download it.</p><p>I've used it on two clients now. There are some gotchas you have to look out for when machines change machine names or IP addresses if they're out of control of the kit (basically you have to delete and re-add them so it assigns new security certificates that control secure commo between client and Admin Kit), but basically it's not that hard for somebody with a clue to work with. You have to install either MSDE 2000 (preferred) or Microsoft SQL Server Express (free shrunk down SQL Server from Microsoft) to use the Admin Kit, but you don't have to administer the database, the Kit does that. Kit alows you to back up the database on a scheduled basis as well so you can recover if something gets screwed up.</p><p>Compared to Symantec and others, it's a good deal. The KAV AV itself for small business is not that expensive, either.</p><p>KAV as an AV has its annoyances, though nothing compared to Norton. It tends to pick up every exe in a zip file as a "Trojan something or other", especially anything packed with UPX. So if you have a lot of third party Windows utilities laying around, you'll get false positives and sometimes KAV will delete them unless you specify them as safe - which you can do by applying "policy" from the Admin Kit to all your machines.</p><p>On one of my clients, they got hit with a particularly nasty virus which KAV detected, but not before it infected a critical Windows system file, which KAV then "disinfected", destroying Windows which had to be re-installed by the IT guy on site. But this sort of thing happens with any AV - none of them are fool-proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's complicated , but it runs on Windows XP .
It pushes out the programs to the client PCs ( if they 're Windows XP , Home is a no-go due to the Guest account force ) , as well as updates .
Downloads updates from the KAV servers , caches them , pushes them out .
Has all kinds of reports on detected infections , machines that have n't been updated lately or are off the network , etc.Comes with the business version of the AV product , server or workstation , no extra charge .
Just download it.I 've used it on two clients now .
There are some gotchas you have to look out for when machines change machine names or IP addresses if they 're out of control of the kit ( basically you have to delete and re-add them so it assigns new security certificates that control secure commo between client and Admin Kit ) , but basically it 's not that hard for somebody with a clue to work with .
You have to install either MSDE 2000 ( preferred ) or Microsoft SQL Server Express ( free shrunk down SQL Server from Microsoft ) to use the Admin Kit , but you do n't have to administer the database , the Kit does that .
Kit alows you to back up the database on a scheduled basis as well so you can recover if something gets screwed up.Compared to Symantec and others , it 's a good deal .
The KAV AV itself for small business is not that expensive , either.KAV as an AV has its annoyances , though nothing compared to Norton .
It tends to pick up every exe in a zip file as a " Trojan something or other " , especially anything packed with UPX .
So if you have a lot of third party Windows utilities laying around , you 'll get false positives and sometimes KAV will delete them unless you specify them as safe - which you can do by applying " policy " from the Admin Kit to all your machines.On one of my clients , they got hit with a particularly nasty virus which KAV detected , but not before it infected a critical Windows system file , which KAV then " disinfected " , destroying Windows which had to be re-installed by the IT guy on site .
But this sort of thing happens with any AV - none of them are fool-proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's complicated, but it runs on Windows XP.
It pushes out the programs to the client PCs (if they're Windows XP, Home is a no-go due to the Guest account force), as well as updates.
Downloads updates from the KAV servers, caches them, pushes them out.
Has all kinds of reports on detected infections, machines that haven't been updated lately or are off the network, etc.Comes with the business version of the AV product, server or workstation, no extra charge.
Just download it.I've used it on two clients now.
There are some gotchas you have to look out for when machines change machine names or IP addresses if they're out of control of the kit (basically you have to delete and re-add them so it assigns new security certificates that control secure commo between client and Admin Kit), but basically it's not that hard for somebody with a clue to work with.
You have to install either MSDE 2000 (preferred) or Microsoft SQL Server Express (free shrunk down SQL Server from Microsoft) to use the Admin Kit, but you don't have to administer the database, the Kit does that.
Kit alows you to back up the database on a scheduled basis as well so you can recover if something gets screwed up.Compared to Symantec and others, it's a good deal.
The KAV AV itself for small business is not that expensive, either.KAV as an AV has its annoyances, though nothing compared to Norton.
It tends to pick up every exe in a zip file as a "Trojan something or other", especially anything packed with UPX.
So if you have a lot of third party Windows utilities laying around, you'll get false positives and sometimes KAV will delete them unless you specify them as safe - which you can do by applying "policy" from the Admin Kit to all your machines.On one of my clients, they got hit with a particularly nasty virus which KAV detected, but not before it infected a critical Windows system file, which KAV then "disinfected", destroying Windows which had to be re-installed by the IT guy on site.
But this sort of thing happens with any AV - none of them are fool-proof.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</id>
	<title>Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245180720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Antivirus suits are the <i>last</i> line of defense. Not the first!</p><p>The first is the user and sensible usage policies. When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus suits are the last line of defense .
Not the first ! The first is the user and sensible usage policies .
When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random , you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus suits are the last line of defense.
Not the first!The first is the user and sensible usage policies.
When people can download and execute arbitrary software and plug in USB sticks at random, you have bigger problems than the choice of your AV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358139</id>
	<title>I'm guessing here, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A decent router, regular Windows security updates, Firefox and user education are out of the question, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A decent router , regular Windows security updates , Firefox and user education are out of the question , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decent router, regular Windows security updates, Firefox and user education are out of the question, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360363</id>
	<title>Managed Service...</title>
	<author>Harassed</author>
	<datestamp>1245247140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at the Trend WorryFree managed service.  Doesn't need a central server on-site and you still get a centrally managed solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at the Trend WorryFree managed service .
Does n't need a central server on-site and you still get a centrally managed solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at the Trend WorryFree managed service.
Doesn't need a central server on-site and you still get a centrally managed solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358125</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have 25 computers in the office and also use Nod32. It features a centralized admin GUI, easy to use, effective and no viruses. Try it</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have 25 computers in the office and also use Nod32 .
It features a centralized admin GUI , easy to use , effective and no viruses .
Try it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have 25 computers in the office and also use Nod32.
It features a centralized admin GUI, easy to use, effective and no viruses.
Try it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361363</id>
	<title>Trend Micro AV</title>
	<author>MatchstickMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1245252900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were recently in the same position. We were running Symantec Endpoint protection and it was expensive and a pain to manage. After doing some research we switched to Trend Micro and like it so far. There is a Linux client and everything, including installs, can be managed from the server. TM is a little quirky at first, but once you get the hang of it it is a very cost effective and manageable solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were recently in the same position .
We were running Symantec Endpoint protection and it was expensive and a pain to manage .
After doing some research we switched to Trend Micro and like it so far .
There is a Linux client and everything , including installs , can be managed from the server .
TM is a little quirky at first , but once you get the hang of it it is a very cost effective and manageable solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were recently in the same position.
We were running Symantec Endpoint protection and it was expensive and a pain to manage.
After doing some research we switched to Trend Micro and like it so far.
There is a Linux client and everything, including installs, can be managed from the server.
TM is a little quirky at first, but once you get the hang of it it is a very cost effective and manageable solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362245</id>
	<title>Suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AVAST! has been a great solution for my firm.</p><p>We have used it as a replacement for Symantec at multiple sites. SEP seems like bloatware and isnt as intuitive as it should have been.</p><p>AVAST! also has a totally free home user version, which i have to say is extremely nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AVAST !
has been a great solution for my firm.We have used it as a replacement for Symantec at multiple sites .
SEP seems like bloatware and isnt as intuitive as it should have been.AVAST !
also has a totally free home user version , which i have to say is extremely nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AVAST!
has been a great solution for my firm.We have used it as a replacement for Symantec at multiple sites.
SEP seems like bloatware and isnt as intuitive as it should have been.AVAST!
also has a totally free home user version, which i have to say is extremely nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>FRiC</author>
	<datestamp>1245180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about other people, but around where I work, the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed, it also has tons of viruses installed. Nod32 never seems to work in real life, eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations.</p><p>(We use avira.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about other people , but around where I work , the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed , it also has tons of viruses installed .
Nod32 never seems to work in real life , eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations .
( We use avira .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about other people, but around where I work, the joke is that whichever computer has Nod32 installed, it also has tons of viruses installed.
Nod32 never seems to work in real life, eventhough it consistently scores high in reviews and have lots of recommendations.
(We use avira.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365789</id>
	<title>Avast's Distributed Network Management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use Avast's Distributed Network Management (ADNM)<br>Works like a champ and is centrally managed.<br>Will deploy without the need of Active Directory, or if you do upgrade to AD, you can easily create an MSI file to deploy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Avast 's Distributed Network Management ( ADNM ) Works like a champ and is centrally managed.Will deploy without the need of Active Directory , or if you do upgrade to AD , you can easily create an MSI file to deploy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Avast's Distributed Network Management (ADNM)Works like a champ and is centrally managed.Will deploy without the need of Active Directory, or if you do upgrade to AD, you can easily create an MSI file to deploy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28369527</id>
	<title>We use Trend Micro Client/Server for Small Busines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice central administration console - you can push out the installation to your workstations it even  (supposedly) removes any existing anti-virus software. (It was unable to cope with Norton AV which is notoriously difficult to remove). The whole package (we have 27 licenses) cost less than the individual subscriptions we used to have and servers are just another license (we have 4). We are quite happy with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice central administration console - you can push out the installation to your workstations it even ( supposedly ) removes any existing anti-virus software .
( It was unable to cope with Norton AV which is notoriously difficult to remove ) .
The whole package ( we have 27 licenses ) cost less than the individual subscriptions we used to have and servers are just another license ( we have 4 ) .
We are quite happy with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice central administration console - you can push out the installation to your workstations it even  (supposedly) removes any existing anti-virus software.
(It was unable to cope with Norton AV which is notoriously difficult to remove).
The whole package (we have 27 licenses) cost less than the individual subscriptions we used to have and servers are just another license (we have 4).
We are quite happy with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358473</id>
	<title>McAfee?</title>
	<author>gareth.fletcher</author>
	<datestamp>1245269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>McAfee offer a nice solution - yourasp, which is quite good. Offers a really nice web interface for central reporting and policy configuration etc. At first I thought it would be total crap but now recommend it to our clients, some 6 - 30 PCs. Not sure about the licensing though.

But just use what you know, no point spending 20hours trying to figure out some xyz app when you could be doing better things (read beer).</htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee offer a nice solution - yourasp , which is quite good .
Offers a really nice web interface for central reporting and policy configuration etc .
At first I thought it would be total crap but now recommend it to our clients , some 6 - 30 PCs .
Not sure about the licensing though .
But just use what you know , no point spending 20hours trying to figure out some xyz app when you could be doing better things ( read beer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee offer a nice solution - yourasp, which is quite good.
Offers a really nice web interface for central reporting and policy configuration etc.
At first I thought it would be total crap but now recommend it to our clients, some 6 - 30 PCs.
Not sure about the licensing though.
But just use what you know, no point spending 20hours trying to figure out some xyz app when you could be doing better things (read beer).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358383</id>
	<title>We use AVG</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1245181800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have AVG 8.5 on our workstations, it's about 30 of them now. Regular AVG, not Internet Security. But the Network Edition, which has a management console. My guess is that as long as you have <i>something</i> you can't really go wrong. AVG works fine for me. The weird thing is that you can usually deploy AVG for the first time without rebooting the station, but every so often there will be a program update to AVG that needs a reboot to take effect.</p><p>It's about about $25 a seat I think. I've only ever bought 1 year at a time. I'm on my second year.</p><p>I don't install the link scanner, browser plugin, etc. (we have some web filtering at the router anyway). Just the antivirus/spyware/rootkit and the email and MS Office plugins. I was toying with the idea of using the firewall, since we've essentially paid for it, but I think the Windows firewall + Group Policy is probably enough for intra-LAN security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have AVG 8.5 on our workstations , it 's about 30 of them now .
Regular AVG , not Internet Security .
But the Network Edition , which has a management console .
My guess is that as long as you have something you ca n't really go wrong .
AVG works fine for me .
The weird thing is that you can usually deploy AVG for the first time without rebooting the station , but every so often there will be a program update to AVG that needs a reboot to take effect.It 's about about $ 25 a seat I think .
I 've only ever bought 1 year at a time .
I 'm on my second year.I do n't install the link scanner , browser plugin , etc .
( we have some web filtering at the router anyway ) .
Just the antivirus/spyware/rootkit and the email and MS Office plugins .
I was toying with the idea of using the firewall , since we 've essentially paid for it , but I think the Windows firewall + Group Policy is probably enough for intra-LAN security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have AVG 8.5 on our workstations, it's about 30 of them now.
Regular AVG, not Internet Security.
But the Network Edition, which has a management console.
My guess is that as long as you have something you can't really go wrong.
AVG works fine for me.
The weird thing is that you can usually deploy AVG for the first time without rebooting the station, but every so often there will be a program update to AVG that needs a reboot to take effect.It's about about $25 a seat I think.
I've only ever bought 1 year at a time.
I'm on my second year.I don't install the link scanner, browser plugin, etc.
(we have some web filtering at the router anyway).
Just the antivirus/spyware/rootkit and the email and MS Office plugins.
I was toying with the idea of using the firewall, since we've essentially paid for it, but I think the Windows firewall + Group Policy is probably enough for intra-LAN security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358759</id>
	<title>What's wrong with SEP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took AV management upon myself when I upgraded from SAV 10 to SEP 11.  It's very simple to set up the basic stuff, just the management server with the built-in database.  Sure you can stack on LiveUpdate, redundant management servers, SQL databases, Quarantine servers, etc, but none of that is needed most of the time.</p><p>I have since set up a geographically seperate management server/database and set it to provide only fault-tolerance, not load balancing.  I'm in the process of updating all of the existing SEP clients to the latest Maintenance Release, which is nearly as easy as dropping the install package onto the group that all of the machines are in.  Even updating the old SAV 10 clients is easy, just let the SEP management server search for all machines that don't have SEP already installed.  It performs the SAV 10 uninstall and then installs SEP11.  Very slick.</p><p>lastly, SEP seems to be less resource hungry then the aged SAV 10.</p><p>That being said, I haven't used any enterprise-grade AV products outside of symantec, so maybe others are even easier?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took AV management upon myself when I upgraded from SAV 10 to SEP 11 .
It 's very simple to set up the basic stuff , just the management server with the built-in database .
Sure you can stack on LiveUpdate , redundant management servers , SQL databases , Quarantine servers , etc , but none of that is needed most of the time.I have since set up a geographically seperate management server/database and set it to provide only fault-tolerance , not load balancing .
I 'm in the process of updating all of the existing SEP clients to the latest Maintenance Release , which is nearly as easy as dropping the install package onto the group that all of the machines are in .
Even updating the old SAV 10 clients is easy , just let the SEP management server search for all machines that do n't have SEP already installed .
It performs the SAV 10 uninstall and then installs SEP11 .
Very slick.lastly , SEP seems to be less resource hungry then the aged SAV 10.That being said , I have n't used any enterprise-grade AV products outside of symantec , so maybe others are even easier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took AV management upon myself when I upgraded from SAV 10 to SEP 11.
It's very simple to set up the basic stuff, just the management server with the built-in database.
Sure you can stack on LiveUpdate, redundant management servers, SQL databases, Quarantine servers, etc, but none of that is needed most of the time.I have since set up a geographically seperate management server/database and set it to provide only fault-tolerance, not load balancing.
I'm in the process of updating all of the existing SEP clients to the latest Maintenance Release, which is nearly as easy as dropping the install package onto the group that all of the machines are in.
Even updating the old SAV 10 clients is easy, just let the SEP management server search for all machines that don't have SEP already installed.
It performs the SAV 10 uninstall and then installs SEP11.
Very slick.lastly, SEP seems to be less resource hungry then the aged SAV 10.That being said, I haven't used any enterprise-grade AV products outside of symantec, so maybe others are even easier?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358315</id>
	<title>Re:AVG</title>
	<author>newruler</author>
	<datestamp>1245181200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also put forth my vote for AVG.  Though my own workstations are Linux based for all my customers running Windows it's AVG all the way.  I have installed it up to a network of 100 workstations and it can scale further if needed.  Of course the 20 workstation scenario is covered quite well by it.  Like it has been mentioned it doesn't require a server to be installed on.  Also please note that they also have linux clients available as well.  Oh and versions exist for File Servers as well as some mail servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also put forth my vote for AVG .
Though my own workstations are Linux based for all my customers running Windows it 's AVG all the way .
I have installed it up to a network of 100 workstations and it can scale further if needed .
Of course the 20 workstation scenario is covered quite well by it .
Like it has been mentioned it does n't require a server to be installed on .
Also please note that they also have linux clients available as well .
Oh and versions exist for File Servers as well as some mail servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also put forth my vote for AVG.
Though my own workstations are Linux based for all my customers running Windows it's AVG all the way.
I have installed it up to a network of 100 workstations and it can scale further if needed.
Of course the 20 workstation scenario is covered quite well by it.
Like it has been mentioned it doesn't require a server to be installed on.
Also please note that they also have linux clients available as well.
Oh and versions exist for File Servers as well as some mail servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360301</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>tonywestonuk</author>
	<datestamp>1245246720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4 Moderators marked this 'Troll'... Really?..., for just someone's honest opinion?.... Seams more like censorship of anything positive to do with Apple. I wonder if the parent comment spoke of '...Migrated the office to Unbuntu..', it would have received the same hostility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 Moderators marked this 'Troll'.. .
Really ? ... , for just someone 's honest opinion ? ... .
Seams more like censorship of anything positive to do with Apple .
I wonder if the parent comment spoke of '...Migrated the office to Unbuntu.. ' , it would have received the same hostility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 Moderators marked this 'Troll'...
Really?..., for just someone's honest opinion?....
Seams more like censorship of anything positive to do with Apple.
I wonder if the parent comment spoke of '...Migrated the office to Unbuntu..', it would have received the same hostility?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358917</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245231360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in Digital Forensics, and we all use NOD32 where I work. Works like a charm, even manages to pick up viruses we've are yet to examine via heuristics, all the while keeping a low memory footprint.
Mind you, the new version of NOD32 is annoying and it's starting to feel like many other mainstream anti-virus packages, back when they started to become bloatware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in Digital Forensics , and we all use NOD32 where I work .
Works like a charm , even manages to pick up viruses we 've are yet to examine via heuristics , all the while keeping a low memory footprint .
Mind you , the new version of NOD32 is annoying and it 's starting to feel like many other mainstream anti-virus packages , back when they started to become bloatware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in Digital Forensics, and we all use NOD32 where I work.
Works like a charm, even manages to pick up viruses we've are yet to examine via heuristics, all the while keeping a low memory footprint.
Mind you, the new version of NOD32 is annoying and it's starting to feel like many other mainstream anti-virus packages, back when they started to become bloatware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360521</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is immune to policies. After all, he is fully responsible for everything that happens, also for the eventual collapse of the computer network if he ignores them.</p><p>Sooner or later someone will want to know why the computer department cost center racks up a load of maintainance hours, billed to the CEO. Someone will also want to know why he needs a new laptop twice a year.</p><p>People like him are in fact immune to policies they enact. They hang on much bigger strings: Money. He has to justify the cost incurred. Whether he can justify that depends on a few things: First, whether his superiors know at least a tiny bit about computers. And second, and more important, whether you can explain why so many hours had to be spent to keep his computer working.</p><p>If you're not asked but just reprimanded, get a new job. The company will eventually be going down the drain and you'll be without one anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is immune to policies .
After all , he is fully responsible for everything that happens , also for the eventual collapse of the computer network if he ignores them.Sooner or later someone will want to know why the computer department cost center racks up a load of maintainance hours , billed to the CEO .
Someone will also want to know why he needs a new laptop twice a year.People like him are in fact immune to policies they enact .
They hang on much bigger strings : Money .
He has to justify the cost incurred .
Whether he can justify that depends on a few things : First , whether his superiors know at least a tiny bit about computers .
And second , and more important , whether you can explain why so many hours had to be spent to keep his computer working.If you 're not asked but just reprimanded , get a new job .
The company will eventually be going down the drain and you 'll be without one anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is immune to policies.
After all, he is fully responsible for everything that happens, also for the eventual collapse of the computer network if he ignores them.Sooner or later someone will want to know why the computer department cost center racks up a load of maintainance hours, billed to the CEO.
Someone will also want to know why he needs a new laptop twice a year.People like him are in fact immune to policies they enact.
They hang on much bigger strings: Money.
He has to justify the cost incurred.
Whether he can justify that depends on a few things: First, whether his superiors know at least a tiny bit about computers.
And second, and more important, whether you can explain why so many hours had to be spent to keep his computer working.If you're not asked but just reprimanded, get a new job.
The company will eventually be going down the drain and you'll be without one anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597</id>
	<title>Trend Micro</title>
	<author>clam0</author>
	<datestamp>1245270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For our little business of around ~35 people, we use Trend Micro OfficeScan. You need to check out what it costs, but I can tell you it works well here. To uninstall/configure the program on each client there's a central password and every noticed virus gets e-mailed to the sysadmin. The program is very stable too, and doesn't noticeably slow the system down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For our little business of around ~ 35 people , we use Trend Micro OfficeScan .
You need to check out what it costs , but I can tell you it works well here .
To uninstall/configure the program on each client there 's a central password and every noticed virus gets e-mailed to the sysadmin .
The program is very stable too , and does n't noticeably slow the system down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For our little business of around ~35 people, we use Trend Micro OfficeScan.
You need to check out what it costs, but I can tell you it works well here.
To uninstall/configure the program on each client there's a central password and every noticed virus gets e-mailed to the sysadmin.
The program is very stable too, and doesn't noticeably slow the system down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359067</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245233040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're responsible for system security in such an environment, the best policy would probably be to study the classifieds and get a new job.</p><p>But let's take up the challenge. Is virtualization an option? Do the users need administrator privileges to run the software? How much money is available?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're responsible for system security in such an environment , the best policy would probably be to study the classifieds and get a new job.But let 's take up the challenge .
Is virtualization an option ?
Do the users need administrator privileges to run the software ?
How much money is available ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're responsible for system security in such an environment, the best policy would probably be to study the classifieds and get a new job.But let's take up the challenge.
Is virtualization an option?
Do the users need administrator privileges to run the software?
How much money is available?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new door</p><p>And i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new doorAnd i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats like saying a house needs to be demolished because theyd like a new doorAnd i dare say it will raise enormus compatibility problems and costs would be astronomical compared to solving the small problem at hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359929</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who had problems with NOD32 detection rates prior to version 3 simply didn't perform due diligence.</p><p>I agree that if you chose to push it out to workstations without configuring it properly (leaving everything set to the defaults), it was *very* prone to let things through, because everything was set to 'PROMPT' instead of block/delete/disconnect/quarantine.</p><p>Properly configured (I always used Blackspears settings), it is absolutely the most effective AV out there.</p><p>There have been some major issues with versions 3 and now 4, but most of them are worked out now (except for version 4 on Windows Servers), and the latest versions of 3 (3.0.684) and 4 (4.0.437) both have very sensible default settings and are rock solid on everything I've tested them on now. I do tweak the packages I use to push out to workstations a little, but the changes I make are mostly not necessary to keep things very secure.</p><p>My biggest complaint is that the Microsoft recommended exclusions for both workstations and servers must be set up manually... this is just insane, they should be HARD-CODED, or, at a MINIMUM, should be able to be disabled/enabled with a simple checkbox option, which should be enabled by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who had problems with NOD32 detection rates prior to version 3 simply did n't perform due diligence.I agree that if you chose to push it out to workstations without configuring it properly ( leaving everything set to the defaults ) , it was * very * prone to let things through , because everything was set to 'PROMPT ' instead of block/delete/disconnect/quarantine.Properly configured ( I always used Blackspears settings ) , it is absolutely the most effective AV out there.There have been some major issues with versions 3 and now 4 , but most of them are worked out now ( except for version 4 on Windows Servers ) , and the latest versions of 3 ( 3.0.684 ) and 4 ( 4.0.437 ) both have very sensible default settings and are rock solid on everything I 've tested them on now .
I do tweak the packages I use to push out to workstations a little , but the changes I make are mostly not necessary to keep things very secure.My biggest complaint is that the Microsoft recommended exclusions for both workstations and servers must be set up manually... this is just insane , they should be HARD-CODED , or , at a MINIMUM , should be able to be disabled/enabled with a simple checkbox option , which should be enabled by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who had problems with NOD32 detection rates prior to version 3 simply didn't perform due diligence.I agree that if you chose to push it out to workstations without configuring it properly (leaving everything set to the defaults), it was *very* prone to let things through, because everything was set to 'PROMPT' instead of block/delete/disconnect/quarantine.Properly configured (I always used Blackspears settings), it is absolutely the most effective AV out there.There have been some major issues with versions 3 and now 4, but most of them are worked out now (except for version 4 on Windows Servers), and the latest versions of 3 (3.0.684) and 4 (4.0.437) both have very sensible default settings and are rock solid on everything I've tested them on now.
I do tweak the packages I use to push out to workstations a little, but the changes I make are mostly not necessary to keep things very secure.My biggest complaint is that the Microsoft recommended exclusions for both workstations and servers must be set up manually... this is just insane, they should be HARD-CODED, or, at a MINIMUM, should be able to be disabled/enabled with a simple checkbox option, which should be enabled by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358335</id>
	<title>ClamWin is not an option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What it does is provide a simple GUI for clamscan/freshclam,<br>and nothing more.  Its a memory hog (written in wxPython).<br>Its consistently outdated, and has been abandoned a couple of times.<br>Its clumsy (installs freshclam/clamscan commandline clients, but makes it practically impossible to use them -- you have to do everything from GUI).<br>The only thing it has going for it, its the only relatively recent win32 binary version being released (compiling clamav for win32 is really a PITA, and clamwin guys manage to do it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What it does is provide a simple GUI for clamscan/freshclam,and nothing more .
Its a memory hog ( written in wxPython ) .Its consistently outdated , and has been abandoned a couple of times.Its clumsy ( installs freshclam/clamscan commandline clients , but makes it practically impossible to use them -- you have to do everything from GUI ) .The only thing it has going for it , its the only relatively recent win32 binary version being released ( compiling clamav for win32 is really a PITA , and clamwin guys manage to do it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it does is provide a simple GUI for clamscan/freshclam,and nothing more.
Its a memory hog (written in wxPython).Its consistently outdated, and has been abandoned a couple of times.Its clumsy (installs freshclam/clamscan commandline clients, but makes it practically impossible to use them -- you have to do everything from GUI).The only thing it has going for it, its the only relatively recent win32 binary version being released (compiling clamav for win32 is really a PITA, and clamwin guys manage to do it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358661</id>
	<title>confirm Nod32 sucks balls in real world (Y/N): Y</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1245271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I used to work there was nod32, and scheduled clamAV scans was the 1-2 combo. Techs would again use a further package for troubleshooting only (I will decline to name, the EULA didn't allow this use). Most AV packages seem to let some infections through, it's a given in the security world, but it spooked me how prevalent it was. The solution was to use two, thus what defeats a major package will be picked up on by the alternative.
<br> <br>
confirm nod32 sucks balls in real work (Y/N): Y
<br> <br>
ClamAV was good at catching things that slipped past the goalie. Where multiple scans were used, I don't recall any incident that wasn't satisfactorily cleaned up.
<br> <br>
We also had a proprietary recovery tool that could basically rebuild a system with fresh md5-checked binaries, thus a reasonable guarantee of virus-free executables.
<br> <br>
As for the unix and open systems floating about, not a single virus of course, however they would get hacked directly by meat popsicles. The assumption of security leads to serious pwnage when root is obtained on a major box.
<br> <br>
Aside from big holes nod32 has good usability and didn't blow system performance back to 2002, two essential things in enterprise equipment.
<br> <br>
Anyway, my kingdom for a freakin open-source realtime scanner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I used to work there was nod32 , and scheduled clamAV scans was the 1-2 combo .
Techs would again use a further package for troubleshooting only ( I will decline to name , the EULA did n't allow this use ) .
Most AV packages seem to let some infections through , it 's a given in the security world , but it spooked me how prevalent it was .
The solution was to use two , thus what defeats a major package will be picked up on by the alternative .
confirm nod32 sucks balls in real work ( Y/N ) : Y ClamAV was good at catching things that slipped past the goalie .
Where multiple scans were used , I do n't recall any incident that was n't satisfactorily cleaned up .
We also had a proprietary recovery tool that could basically rebuild a system with fresh md5-checked binaries , thus a reasonable guarantee of virus-free executables .
As for the unix and open systems floating about , not a single virus of course , however they would get hacked directly by meat popsicles .
The assumption of security leads to serious pwnage when root is obtained on a major box .
Aside from big holes nod32 has good usability and did n't blow system performance back to 2002 , two essential things in enterprise equipment .
Anyway , my kingdom for a freakin open-source realtime scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I used to work there was nod32, and scheduled clamAV scans was the 1-2 combo.
Techs would again use a further package for troubleshooting only (I will decline to name, the EULA didn't allow this use).
Most AV packages seem to let some infections through, it's a given in the security world, but it spooked me how prevalent it was.
The solution was to use two, thus what defeats a major package will be picked up on by the alternative.
confirm nod32 sucks balls in real work (Y/N): Y
 
ClamAV was good at catching things that slipped past the goalie.
Where multiple scans were used, I don't recall any incident that wasn't satisfactorily cleaned up.
We also had a proprietary recovery tool that could basically rebuild a system with fresh md5-checked binaries, thus a reasonable guarantee of virus-free executables.
As for the unix and open systems floating about, not a single virus of course, however they would get hacked directly by meat popsicles.
The assumption of security leads to serious pwnage when root is obtained on a major box.
Aside from big holes nod32 has good usability and didn't blow system performance back to 2002, two essential things in enterprise equipment.
Anyway, my kingdom for a freakin open-source realtime scanner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358245</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>irving47</author>
	<datestamp>1245180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prices have come down recently, so it's not a terrible idea... As long as the apps you need are available.<br>And we have clamx av.<br>I am sounding smug right now after talking to three people today I moved over to Mac OS and they're all happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prices have come down recently , so it 's not a terrible idea... As long as the apps you need are available.And we have clamx av.I am sounding smug right now after talking to three people today I moved over to Mac OS and they 're all happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prices have come down recently, so it's not a terrible idea... As long as the apps you need are available.And we have clamx av.I am sounding smug right now after talking to three people today I moved over to Mac OS and they're all happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361579</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly a valid response from your point of view, but note that the original questioner doesn't have Windows servers so no AD/Exchange.  It doesn't negate your point, but it does say that your point is not applicable to the original question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly a valid response from your point of view , but note that the original questioner does n't have Windows servers so no AD/Exchange .
It does n't negate your point , but it does say that your point is not applicable to the original question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly a valid response from your point of view, but note that the original questioner doesn't have Windows servers so no AD/Exchange.
It doesn't negate your point, but it does say that your point is not applicable to the original question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361419</id>
	<title>Re:Kaspersky - Support for Windows &amp; Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We installed Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security for a small 12 user LAN about a year ago - we have not had moments problem.</p><p>This was our 1st Client Server installation and was not difficult to implement</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We installed Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security for a small 12 user LAN about a year ago - we have not had moments problem.This was our 1st Client Server installation and was not difficult to implement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We installed Kaspersky Enterprise Space Security for a small 12 user LAN about a year ago - we have not had moments problem.This was our 1st Client Server installation and was not difficult to implement</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358345</id>
	<title>the obvious solution.. on /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>run Linux on all your machines.. and keep a good XP VM image on each machine...if it gets nasty.. delete and start over..that is standard Windows IT procedure anyhow you know.. just wipe the machine and reinstall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>run Linux on all your machines.. and keep a good XP VM image on each machine...if it gets nasty.. delete and start over..that is standard Windows IT procedure anyhow you know.. just wipe the machine and reinstall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>run Linux on all your machines.. and keep a good XP VM image on each machine...if it gets nasty.. delete and start over..that is standard Windows IT procedure anyhow you know.. just wipe the machine and reinstall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358751</id>
	<title>Never McAfee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>McAfee is horrendously insidious.  Should you ever want to use a different product, it is damn near impossible to remove.  After the IT guy at a job spent 7 hours trying to get rid of it (he did, mostly) when they switched to Kaspersky, I spent another three with regedit and a few Cygwin tools hunting down the rest.  I think I got it all, since Outlook has finally quit trying to use it.</p><p>Avoid it like the plague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee is horrendously insidious .
Should you ever want to use a different product , it is damn near impossible to remove .
After the IT guy at a job spent 7 hours trying to get rid of it ( he did , mostly ) when they switched to Kaspersky , I spent another three with regedit and a few Cygwin tools hunting down the rest .
I think I got it all , since Outlook has finally quit trying to use it.Avoid it like the plague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee is horrendously insidious.
Should you ever want to use a different product, it is damn near impossible to remove.
After the IT guy at a job spent 7 hours trying to get rid of it (he did, mostly) when they switched to Kaspersky, I spent another three with regedit and a few Cygwin tools hunting down the rest.
I think I got it all, since Outlook has finally quit trying to use it.Avoid it like the plague.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358177</id>
	<title>HAVP</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1245179820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about <a href="http://www.server-side.de/features.htm" title="server-side.de">HAVP?</a> [server-side.de] Scans all your traffic in and out. It won't stop the bug catching a ride on a USB stick until it actually hits the wire, but heckuva thing being able to monitor the pipe from a single seat. Also available as a <a href="http://www.pfsense.org/" title="pfsense.org">PFSense package.</a> [pfsense.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about HAVP ?
[ server-side.de ] Scans all your traffic in and out .
It wo n't stop the bug catching a ride on a USB stick until it actually hits the wire , but heckuva thing being able to monitor the pipe from a single seat .
Also available as a PFSense package .
[ pfsense.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about HAVP?
[server-side.de] Scans all your traffic in and out.
It won't stop the bug catching a ride on a USB stick until it actually hits the wire, but heckuva thing being able to monitor the pipe from a single seat.
Also available as a PFSense package.
[pfsense.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359821</id>
	<title>Sophos Enterprise Manager</title>
	<author>fudgefactor7</author>
	<datestamp>1245242760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I used to work we had about 400 employees and workstations for each, along with about 6 Linux servers, and a smattering of Win2003 for things here and there. We eventually went with Sophos and their Enterprise Manager software. Centrally administratable, auto updating, pretty much "set and forget." Still expensive, but well worth the initial setup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I used to work we had about 400 employees and workstations for each , along with about 6 Linux servers , and a smattering of Win2003 for things here and there .
We eventually went with Sophos and their Enterprise Manager software .
Centrally administratable , auto updating , pretty much " set and forget .
" Still expensive , but well worth the initial setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I used to work we had about 400 employees and workstations for each, along with about 6 Linux servers, and a smattering of Win2003 for things here and there.
We eventually went with Sophos and their Enterprise Manager software.
Centrally administratable, auto updating, pretty much "set and forget.
" Still expensive, but well worth the initial setup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358255</id>
	<title>Re:ClamWin</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrible detection rate. Sorry, but when an AV suit finds about 2/3 of the threats, you can just as well go without one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrible detection rate .
Sorry , but when an AV suit finds about 2/3 of the threats , you can just as well go without one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrible detection rate.
Sorry, but when an AV suit finds about 2/3 of the threats, you can just as well go without one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358991</id>
	<title>This is the way I did it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245232200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Windows machine have no direct access to the internet. Email is fetched by the Linux server and filtered by spamassassin and users access their mailboxes via IMAP and Thunderbird is used as the email client. Internet access is via the squid proxy server and Firefox with IE TAB for some IE only sites. Squid can be configured to allow or deny access to certain sites if you want. No virus detection programs on the Windows boxes. Software may only be installed after aproval. This way the users retain much of their freedom and the Windows boxes their speed. Only had one incident in many years because someone clicked on a 'bad' link on an infected IE only site of our municipality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows machine have no direct access to the internet .
Email is fetched by the Linux server and filtered by spamassassin and users access their mailboxes via IMAP and Thunderbird is used as the email client .
Internet access is via the squid proxy server and Firefox with IE TAB for some IE only sites .
Squid can be configured to allow or deny access to certain sites if you want .
No virus detection programs on the Windows boxes .
Software may only be installed after aproval .
This way the users retain much of their freedom and the Windows boxes their speed .
Only had one incident in many years because someone clicked on a 'bad ' link on an infected IE only site of our municipality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows machine have no direct access to the internet.
Email is fetched by the Linux server and filtered by spamassassin and users access their mailboxes via IMAP and Thunderbird is used as the email client.
Internet access is via the squid proxy server and Firefox with IE TAB for some IE only sites.
Squid can be configured to allow or deny access to certain sites if you want.
No virus detection programs on the Windows boxes.
Software may only be installed after aproval.
This way the users retain much of their freedom and the Windows boxes their speed.
Only had one incident in many years because someone clicked on a 'bad' link on an infected IE only site of our municipality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245182220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to be able to use osx on our network, but there are some serious roadblocks.  #1 is the price of the workstations.   when you need 300 bog standard desktops on a tight budget, your options from apple are... lacking to say the least.  #2 is compatibility.  entourage is very weak as an exchange client in a business environment.  OWA on non-IE browsers is not great either.  CAD and ERP software is limited.   #3 is the cost of (re)training employees.  with windows you get the benefit of your users having the same system at home/previous job/etc.  even very simple differences in the ui require real support resources.  some people just don't get it, no matter what "it" is.</p><p>also,  while i am a fan of osx and use it personally, i don't put any faith in the "macs are more secure" arguments.  every security analysis I've seen shows that macs are actually easier to exploit (probably will improve in 10.6).  maybe the small installed base just isn't worth the effort to malware creators (yet), but if you use security as justification for switching to the PHB, I think you're setting yourself up to look really bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to be able to use osx on our network , but there are some serious roadblocks .
# 1 is the price of the workstations .
when you need 300 bog standard desktops on a tight budget , your options from apple are... lacking to say the least .
# 2 is compatibility .
entourage is very weak as an exchange client in a business environment .
OWA on non-IE browsers is not great either .
CAD and ERP software is limited .
# 3 is the cost of ( re ) training employees .
with windows you get the benefit of your users having the same system at home/previous job/etc .
even very simple differences in the ui require real support resources .
some people just do n't get it , no matter what " it " is.also , while i am a fan of osx and use it personally , i do n't put any faith in the " macs are more secure " arguments .
every security analysis I 've seen shows that macs are actually easier to exploit ( probably will improve in 10.6 ) .
maybe the small installed base just is n't worth the effort to malware creators ( yet ) , but if you use security as justification for switching to the PHB , I think you 're setting yourself up to look really bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to be able to use osx on our network, but there are some serious roadblocks.
#1 is the price of the workstations.
when you need 300 bog standard desktops on a tight budget, your options from apple are... lacking to say the least.
#2 is compatibility.
entourage is very weak as an exchange client in a business environment.
OWA on non-IE browsers is not great either.
CAD and ERP software is limited.
#3 is the cost of (re)training employees.
with windows you get the benefit of your users having the same system at home/previous job/etc.
even very simple differences in the ui require real support resources.
some people just don't get it, no matter what "it" is.also,  while i am a fan of osx and use it personally, i don't put any faith in the "macs are more secure" arguments.
every security analysis I've seen shows that macs are actually easier to exploit (probably will improve in 10.6).
maybe the small installed base just isn't worth the effort to malware creators (yet), but if you use security as justification for switching to the PHB, I think you're setting yourself up to look really bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361865</id>
	<title>Virtualization?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this a good reason to use virtualization?</p><p>Step 1: Have a centralized, protected, backed up file server.<br>Step 2: Create a standard clean OS and application installation image.<br>Step 3: Daily or weekly flash back to the clean installation (since all user data will be on the file server see step 1 - if its not they'll learn very quickly)<br>Step 4: Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this a good reason to use virtualization ? Step 1 : Have a centralized , protected , backed up file server.Step 2 : Create a standard clean OS and application installation image.Step 3 : Daily or weekly flash back to the clean installation ( since all user data will be on the file server see step 1 - if its not they 'll learn very quickly ) Step 4 : Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this a good reason to use virtualization?Step 1: Have a centralized, protected, backed up file server.Step 2: Create a standard clean OS and application installation image.Step 3: Daily or weekly flash back to the clean installation (since all user data will be on the file server see step 1 - if its not they'll learn very quickly)Step 4: Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a couple years ago i worked at a company the used NOD32 and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.  now I work at a company that used symantec, and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.  One of my current coworkers used to work at place where they used Panda.  They were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.</p><p>WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a couple years ago i worked at a company the used NOD32 and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working .
now I work at a company that used symantec , and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working .
One of my current coworkers used to work at place where they used Panda .
They were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a couple years ago i worked at a company the used NOD32 and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.
now I work at a company that used symantec, and they were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.
One of my current coworkers used to work at place where they used Panda.
They were often bringing infected machines in to the IT dept despite the software being updated and supposedly working.WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28363603</id>
	<title>Stay away from Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We recently purchased about 750 licenses from Kaspersky after testing it out and being dissatisfied with Macafee. It has been a nightmare. I've deployed it to about 200 machines and ever since I've had users begging me to make their machines faster. I don't know how or why, but it is just not liking about 20-30\% of our workstations (decent HP desktops and laptops)</p><p>Their tech support, while being mostly attentive, has been completely useless. They also have us doing pointless system info scans on the same machines over and over even though they have the previous 10 scans and nothing has changed on the machine. Kind of like when you call your ISP to see if there is a service outage and they keep telling you to reboot your model like you are some sort of moron. Also any kind of escalation is handled overseas, I would guess, so any urgent developments have about a 1 day turnaround time at best.</p><p>Kaspersky looked great on paper for us but actual execution has been horrendous.</p><p>The decision to purchase Kaspersky was mostly mine, a young recent IT grad's first real decision out in the world with impact, and I can see now that it was a huge mistake. In fact every day I wonder if/why I will be fired for it. We are in the process of trying to get a refund for it since I can't justify rolling this unstable software out world wide. I also now see why more established IT pros usually never want to make any kind of change unless it is absolutely necessary (if its mostly working don't mess with it).</p><p>I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to keep my mouth shut about how "average" Macafee performance was. The issues with Kaspersky are in a whole different league to the point of a person affected is unable to work normally until I remove the AV. The worst part now is if we do get a refund we have to decide weather its best to just go back on Macafee or find something else; either way I look like a complete moron and worst of all this experience will probably cloud my judgment and tendency to overuse caution in future decisions; I will make the safest/easiest/most secure play as to not put my job in danger instead of going for something with ambition and potential that will be most beneficial for my users and company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We recently purchased about 750 licenses from Kaspersky after testing it out and being dissatisfied with Macafee .
It has been a nightmare .
I 've deployed it to about 200 machines and ever since I 've had users begging me to make their machines faster .
I do n't know how or why , but it is just not liking about 20-30 \ % of our workstations ( decent HP desktops and laptops ) Their tech support , while being mostly attentive , has been completely useless .
They also have us doing pointless system info scans on the same machines over and over even though they have the previous 10 scans and nothing has changed on the machine .
Kind of like when you call your ISP to see if there is a service outage and they keep telling you to reboot your model like you are some sort of moron .
Also any kind of escalation is handled overseas , I would guess , so any urgent developments have about a 1 day turnaround time at best.Kaspersky looked great on paper for us but actual execution has been horrendous.The decision to purchase Kaspersky was mostly mine , a young recent IT grad 's first real decision out in the world with impact , and I can see now that it was a huge mistake .
In fact every day I wonder if/why I will be fired for it .
We are in the process of trying to get a refund for it since I ca n't justify rolling this unstable software out world wide .
I also now see why more established IT pros usually never want to make any kind of change unless it is absolutely necessary ( if its mostly working do n't mess with it ) .I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to keep my mouth shut about how " average " Macafee performance was .
The issues with Kaspersky are in a whole different league to the point of a person affected is unable to work normally until I remove the AV .
The worst part now is if we do get a refund we have to decide weather its best to just go back on Macafee or find something else ; either way I look like a complete moron and worst of all this experience will probably cloud my judgment and tendency to overuse caution in future decisions ; I will make the safest/easiest/most secure play as to not put my job in danger instead of going for something with ambition and potential that will be most beneficial for my users and company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We recently purchased about 750 licenses from Kaspersky after testing it out and being dissatisfied with Macafee.
It has been a nightmare.
I've deployed it to about 200 machines and ever since I've had users begging me to make their machines faster.
I don't know how or why, but it is just not liking about 20-30\% of our workstations (decent HP desktops and laptops)Their tech support, while being mostly attentive, has been completely useless.
They also have us doing pointless system info scans on the same machines over and over even though they have the previous 10 scans and nothing has changed on the machine.
Kind of like when you call your ISP to see if there is a service outage and they keep telling you to reboot your model like you are some sort of moron.
Also any kind of escalation is handled overseas, I would guess, so any urgent developments have about a 1 day turnaround time at best.Kaspersky looked great on paper for us but actual execution has been horrendous.The decision to purchase Kaspersky was mostly mine, a young recent IT grad's first real decision out in the world with impact, and I can see now that it was a huge mistake.
In fact every day I wonder if/why I will be fired for it.
We are in the process of trying to get a refund for it since I can't justify rolling this unstable software out world wide.
I also now see why more established IT pros usually never want to make any kind of change unless it is absolutely necessary (if its mostly working don't mess with it).I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to keep my mouth shut about how "average" Macafee performance was.
The issues with Kaspersky are in a whole different league to the point of a person affected is unable to work normally until I remove the AV.
The worst part now is if we do get a refund we have to decide weather its best to just go back on Macafee or find something else; either way I look like a complete moron and worst of all this experience will probably cloud my judgment and tendency to overuse caution in future decisions; I will make the safest/easiest/most secure play as to not put my job in danger instead of going for something with ambition and potential that will be most beneficial for my users and company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360093</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1245244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've experienced the exact opposite.  NOD32 has found viruses other AV programs miss...somtimes several AV programs.  Heck my solution to fix virus issues on the clients with Symantec installed is to uninstall Symantec, install NOD32 and run a scan to clean it (then begrudginly reinstall Symantec since we're still waiting for our Symantec licenses to run out and only have a few NOD32 ones).  I've had to do that about a half dozen times now and it has yet to fail me.  I keep it on my own computers and I've personally had it find viruses in netowork shares while simply browsing around, and I use it on-demand to check suspicious files.</p><p>It's even good about picking up stuff it things might be viruses but doesn't have a signature for yet...the "UPS delivery failure" Trojan/Adware bundle that likes to go around constantly changes, and Symantec only picks it up half the time...NOD either gets it by signature, or it immediately notices the code is suspicious and quarantines it and submits it for investigation (at my consent).</p><p>So I would say you either have had some really rotten luck, or you work with idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've experienced the exact opposite .
NOD32 has found viruses other AV programs miss...somtimes several AV programs .
Heck my solution to fix virus issues on the clients with Symantec installed is to uninstall Symantec , install NOD32 and run a scan to clean it ( then begrudginly reinstall Symantec since we 're still waiting for our Symantec licenses to run out and only have a few NOD32 ones ) .
I 've had to do that about a half dozen times now and it has yet to fail me .
I keep it on my own computers and I 've personally had it find viruses in netowork shares while simply browsing around , and I use it on-demand to check suspicious files.It 's even good about picking up stuff it things might be viruses but does n't have a signature for yet...the " UPS delivery failure " Trojan/Adware bundle that likes to go around constantly changes , and Symantec only picks it up half the time...NOD either gets it by signature , or it immediately notices the code is suspicious and quarantines it and submits it for investigation ( at my consent ) .So I would say you either have had some really rotten luck , or you work with idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've experienced the exact opposite.
NOD32 has found viruses other AV programs miss...somtimes several AV programs.
Heck my solution to fix virus issues on the clients with Symantec installed is to uninstall Symantec, install NOD32 and run a scan to clean it (then begrudginly reinstall Symantec since we're still waiting for our Symantec licenses to run out and only have a few NOD32 ones).
I've had to do that about a half dozen times now and it has yet to fail me.
I keep it on my own computers and I've personally had it find viruses in netowork shares while simply browsing around, and I use it on-demand to check suspicious files.It's even good about picking up stuff it things might be viruses but doesn't have a signature for yet...the "UPS delivery failure" Trojan/Adware bundle that likes to go around constantly changes, and Symantec only picks it up half the time...NOD either gets it by signature, or it immediately notices the code is suspicious and quarantines it and submits it for investigation (at my consent).So I would say you either have had some really rotten luck, or you work with idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358129</id>
	<title>AVG</title>
	<author>mbutler</author>
	<datestamp>1245179220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ive installed AVG with the central control module just setup an old workstation to look after this easiest software ive ever installed, also allows you to change keys and do remote installs takes about an hour to install on machine then remotely load up 20-30 computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ive installed AVG with the central control module just setup an old workstation to look after this easiest software ive ever installed , also allows you to change keys and do remote installs takes about an hour to install on machine then remotely load up 20-30 computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ive installed AVG with the central control module just setup an old workstation to look after this easiest software ive ever installed, also allows you to change keys and do remote installs takes about an hour to install on machine then remotely load up 20-30 computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359481</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245238800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX is supposedly getting exchange support, on the other hand is Apple really the problem?</p><p>We have a similar situation where i work, exchange doesn't interoperate with the increasing number of linux and mac workstations... The problem is exchange not interoperating with anything else (as well as having a whole host of other problems and hidden costs), which is why it's being replaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX is supposedly getting exchange support , on the other hand is Apple really the problem ? We have a similar situation where i work , exchange does n't interoperate with the increasing number of linux and mac workstations... The problem is exchange not interoperating with anything else ( as well as having a whole host of other problems and hidden costs ) , which is why it 's being replaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX is supposedly getting exchange support, on the other hand is Apple really the problem?We have a similar situation where i work, exchange doesn't interoperate with the increasing number of linux and mac workstations... The problem is exchange not interoperating with anything else (as well as having a whole host of other problems and hidden costs), which is why it's being replaced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358649</id>
	<title>Trend OfficeScan</title>
	<author>Lcf34</author>
	<datestamp>1245270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After having managed three major products in the past years (EPO + McAfee, Trend OfficeScan, SEP, on various directories ranging from 120 to 6000 boxes) I would definitely vote for Trend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After having managed three major products in the past years ( EPO + McAfee , Trend OfficeScan , SEP , on various directories ranging from 120 to 6000 boxes ) I would definitely vote for Trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After having managed three major products in the past years (EPO + McAfee, Trend OfficeScan, SEP, on various directories ranging from 120 to 6000 boxes) I would definitely vote for Trend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360207</id>
	<title>How about holding users responsible?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that antivirus is a reactive process.  First the threat is identified, then it is defended.  It is rare when new malware is stopped first.  Ultimately, it comes down to this:</p><p>The workstation at the office is a business tool.  It's a tool for business.  Let that settle in.  Now, if the user does something that mucks the tool up, the user mucked up his business tool cutting into productivity.  Running personally installed software comes with risk.  Even hitting web sites comes with risk (regardless of which browser is used but CLEARLY less chance of a problem not using MSIE).  And yes, getting email poses risks as well.  But in all my experience, it is the people who never do anything personal on their work machines who run the cleanest and the safest.  They never get anything and never have a problem.  It's always the jackasses who compulsively feel the need to install every software do-dad under the sun that has the problems.  It's time that business hold the user responsible.</p><p>Now with that said, some very basic things should be done by IT:</p><p>1. Effective email filtering.<br>2. Clean system software images for quick/clean restore</p><p>and for those sites that refuse to hold their SUPPOSEDLY ADULT users responsible for their work tools</p><p>3. Set up Deep Freeze on those computers</p><p>This rant is all about holding mature working adults responsible for their actions while supplementing with preventative and recovery measures.  Perhaps some antivirus software should be run, but good habits and handling usually makes that irrelevant.  So when bad things happen, the procedure would be to report it (to business management), do a bit of analysis, re-image the system and move on.  Once again, the people who keep their personal crap out of their business stuff are the same ones who are trouble-free.  I have yet to see an exception to that rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that antivirus is a reactive process .
First the threat is identified , then it is defended .
It is rare when new malware is stopped first .
Ultimately , it comes down to this : The workstation at the office is a business tool .
It 's a tool for business .
Let that settle in .
Now , if the user does something that mucks the tool up , the user mucked up his business tool cutting into productivity .
Running personally installed software comes with risk .
Even hitting web sites comes with risk ( regardless of which browser is used but CLEARLY less chance of a problem not using MSIE ) .
And yes , getting email poses risks as well .
But in all my experience , it is the people who never do anything personal on their work machines who run the cleanest and the safest .
They never get anything and never have a problem .
It 's always the jackasses who compulsively feel the need to install every software do-dad under the sun that has the problems .
It 's time that business hold the user responsible.Now with that said , some very basic things should be done by IT : 1 .
Effective email filtering.2 .
Clean system software images for quick/clean restoreand for those sites that refuse to hold their SUPPOSEDLY ADULT users responsible for their work tools3 .
Set up Deep Freeze on those computersThis rant is all about holding mature working adults responsible for their actions while supplementing with preventative and recovery measures .
Perhaps some antivirus software should be run , but good habits and handling usually makes that irrelevant .
So when bad things happen , the procedure would be to report it ( to business management ) , do a bit of analysis , re-image the system and move on .
Once again , the people who keep their personal crap out of their business stuff are the same ones who are trouble-free .
I have yet to see an exception to that rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that antivirus is a reactive process.
First the threat is identified, then it is defended.
It is rare when new malware is stopped first.
Ultimately, it comes down to this:The workstation at the office is a business tool.
It's a tool for business.
Let that settle in.
Now, if the user does something that mucks the tool up, the user mucked up his business tool cutting into productivity.
Running personally installed software comes with risk.
Even hitting web sites comes with risk (regardless of which browser is used but CLEARLY less chance of a problem not using MSIE).
And yes, getting email poses risks as well.
But in all my experience, it is the people who never do anything personal on their work machines who run the cleanest and the safest.
They never get anything and never have a problem.
It's always the jackasses who compulsively feel the need to install every software do-dad under the sun that has the problems.
It's time that business hold the user responsible.Now with that said, some very basic things should be done by IT:1.
Effective email filtering.2.
Clean system software images for quick/clean restoreand for those sites that refuse to hold their SUPPOSEDLY ADULT users responsible for their work tools3.
Set up Deep Freeze on those computersThis rant is all about holding mature working adults responsible for their actions while supplementing with preventative and recovery measures.
Perhaps some antivirus software should be run, but good habits and handling usually makes that irrelevant.
So when bad things happen, the procedure would be to report it (to business management), do a bit of analysis, re-image the system and move on.
Once again, the people who keep their personal crap out of their business stuff are the same ones who are trouble-free.
I have yet to see an exception to that rule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360183</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Kr1ll1n</author>
	<datestamp>1245245700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because where you work, people don't know how to configure an AV product. Nod's default config sucks, and the product is only effective once you crank up the heuristics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because where you work , people do n't know how to configure an AV product .
Nod 's default config sucks , and the product is only effective once you crank up the heuristics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because where you work, people don't know how to configure an AV product.
Nod's default config sucks, and the product is only effective once you crank up the heuristics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361125</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever tried <a href="http://www.untangle.com/" title="untangle.com" rel="nofollow">Untangle?</a> [untangle.com] It works great for spam/virus filtering (and many other things), but you would still need a desktop AV client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever tried Untangle ?
[ untangle.com ] It works great for spam/virus filtering ( and many other things ) , but you would still need a desktop AV client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever tried Untangle?
[untangle.com] It works great for spam/virus filtering (and many other things), but you would still need a desktop AV client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358389</id>
	<title>Bit Defender</title>
	<author>labnet</author>
	<datestamp>1245181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use bit defender, but it gives me the shi^s.<br>You manage all the client via an MMC snap in, but like other MMC snap ins, it just doesn't really work that well.<br>eg. The computer names get mangled when DHCP reassigns, so you need to view clients by IP rather than name, but the mangled name is the only reference in the reports.<br>Everything is done by assigning policies, but there is no easy way to see what clients licenses have expired.</p><p>I intend to change to something else when licencing comes up again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use bit defender , but it gives me the shi ^ s.You manage all the client via an MMC snap in , but like other MMC snap ins , it just does n't really work that well.eg .
The computer names get mangled when DHCP reassigns , so you need to view clients by IP rather than name , but the mangled name is the only reference in the reports.Everything is done by assigning policies , but there is no easy way to see what clients licenses have expired.I intend to change to something else when licencing comes up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use bit defender, but it gives me the shi^s.You manage all the client via an MMC snap in, but like other MMC snap ins, it just doesn't really work that well.eg.
The computer names get mangled when DHCP reassigns, so you need to view clients by IP rather than name, but the mangled name is the only reference in the reports.Everything is done by assigning policies, but there is no easy way to see what clients licenses have expired.I intend to change to something else when licencing comes up again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28366919</id>
	<title>Just use SEP.  Stop making your life difficult.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making this too difficult.  Just pick a rarely used workstation to act as an AV server and install SEP.  It takes very little proc/mem to run SEP and you will never find a more complete, tested or trusted suite... particularly when it comes to granular control of the workstations including locking down USB access.</p><p>I work as a security consultant for fortune 100 finance firms and some smaller hedge fund firms as well.  From large environments (1000+ users) to small (~5 users), you simply can't beat SEP.  Yeah, the server GUI is a little annoying and not very intuitive, but once you understand how it works, you're set.  Not to mention... they have fantastic support.  Say what you will about having to deal with India for tech support (and of course the hold times)...  their techs are knowledgeable and have been able to solve our problems every time.</p><p>I have worked with:<br>- Trend (sucks... their updates frequently break environments)<br>- ClamAV (great for linux mail servers)<br>- SAV (tried and true, but somewhat resource hungry)<br>- Panda (JUNK! AVOID!)<br>- AVG (one step above spyware scam software... junk)<br>- Avast (great for home use)<br>- Mcafee (ugh)<br>- Antivir (good for home use, but I prefer Avast).</p><p>The biggest piece of advice I have for anyone thinking of installing SEP... make sure you're  using the latest release (Currently MR4).  Do NOT install an older version and upgrade.  The other very important detail is don't install the network threat protection package in SEP.  It breaks DFS file servers and Windows domain controllers.  Just stick to the Antivirus/Antispyware software and you're all set.</p><p>Face it... you're running a Windows environment and happen to have one Linux box on the network. One Linux server does not make it worth your while to go about stuffing some Linux based solution that requires weeks of tinkering to make it work with Windows machines, just so you can save a buck.  Trust me...  you get what you pay for.  Stick to the software designed for professional windows environments and disregard the Linux fanboys(and girls) on here who tell you otherwise.  Linux is fantastic at what it does and I certainly have my share of *nix servers in my environments...  but you're trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.  Stop that!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making this too difficult .
Just pick a rarely used workstation to act as an AV server and install SEP. It takes very little proc/mem to run SEP and you will never find a more complete , tested or trusted suite... particularly when it comes to granular control of the workstations including locking down USB access.I work as a security consultant for fortune 100 finance firms and some smaller hedge fund firms as well .
From large environments ( 1000 + users ) to small ( ~ 5 users ) , you simply ca n't beat SEP. Yeah , the server GUI is a little annoying and not very intuitive , but once you understand how it works , you 're set .
Not to mention... they have fantastic support .
Say what you will about having to deal with India for tech support ( and of course the hold times ) ... their techs are knowledgeable and have been able to solve our problems every time.I have worked with : - Trend ( sucks... their updates frequently break environments ) - ClamAV ( great for linux mail servers ) - SAV ( tried and true , but somewhat resource hungry ) - Panda ( JUNK !
AVOID ! ) - AVG ( one step above spyware scam software... junk ) - Avast ( great for home use ) - Mcafee ( ugh ) - Antivir ( good for home use , but I prefer Avast ) .The biggest piece of advice I have for anyone thinking of installing SEP... make sure you 're using the latest release ( Currently MR4 ) .
Do NOT install an older version and upgrade .
The other very important detail is do n't install the network threat protection package in SEP. It breaks DFS file servers and Windows domain controllers .
Just stick to the Antivirus/Antispyware software and you 're all set.Face it... you 're running a Windows environment and happen to have one Linux box on the network .
One Linux server does not make it worth your while to go about stuffing some Linux based solution that requires weeks of tinkering to make it work with Windows machines , just so you can save a buck .
Trust me... you get what you pay for .
Stick to the software designed for professional windows environments and disregard the Linux fanboys ( and girls ) on here who tell you otherwise .
Linux is fantastic at what it does and I certainly have my share of * nix servers in my environments... but you 're trying to stick a square peg in a round hole .
Stop that !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making this too difficult.
Just pick a rarely used workstation to act as an AV server and install SEP.  It takes very little proc/mem to run SEP and you will never find a more complete, tested or trusted suite... particularly when it comes to granular control of the workstations including locking down USB access.I work as a security consultant for fortune 100 finance firms and some smaller hedge fund firms as well.
From large environments (1000+ users) to small (~5 users), you simply can't beat SEP.  Yeah, the server GUI is a little annoying and not very intuitive, but once you understand how it works, you're set.
Not to mention... they have fantastic support.
Say what you will about having to deal with India for tech support (and of course the hold times)...  their techs are knowledgeable and have been able to solve our problems every time.I have worked with:- Trend (sucks... their updates frequently break environments)- ClamAV (great for linux mail servers)- SAV (tried and true, but somewhat resource hungry)- Panda (JUNK!
AVOID!)- AVG (one step above spyware scam software... junk)- Avast (great for home use)- Mcafee (ugh)- Antivir (good for home use, but I prefer Avast).The biggest piece of advice I have for anyone thinking of installing SEP... make sure you're  using the latest release (Currently MR4).
Do NOT install an older version and upgrade.
The other very important detail is don't install the network threat protection package in SEP.  It breaks DFS file servers and Windows domain controllers.
Just stick to the Antivirus/Antispyware software and you're all set.Face it... you're running a Windows environment and happen to have one Linux box on the network.
One Linux server does not make it worth your while to go about stuffing some Linux based solution that requires weeks of tinkering to make it work with Windows machines, just so you can save a buck.
Trust me...  you get what you pay for.
Stick to the software designed for professional windows environments and disregard the Linux fanboys(and girls) on here who tell you otherwise.
Linux is fantastic at what it does and I certainly have my share of *nix servers in my environments...  but you're trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.
Stop that!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359877</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>fudgefactor7</author>
	<datestamp>1245243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, true. However, there is one flaw in that argument, which is one that I used all the time: corner office syndrome. People who have "rank" and are things like "President of such-and-such" seem to think they are immune to policy. We had one who signed (I was a witness) the official PC and computer use policy agreement, where it said that not following directives would result in penalties, up to and including termination of employment. He was the President of the company and answered literally to only two people. Guess what? The dude didn't care, and did what he wanted all the time. We ended up wiping and restoring his data almost monthly. Policies are worthless unless they can be applied to everyone, regardless of rank, equally. My opinion: the guy should have been fired. Reality: every 6 months we bought him a brand new laptop (he controlled the purse-strings too). Brilliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , true .
However , there is one flaw in that argument , which is one that I used all the time : corner office syndrome .
People who have " rank " and are things like " President of such-and-such " seem to think they are immune to policy .
We had one who signed ( I was a witness ) the official PC and computer use policy agreement , where it said that not following directives would result in penalties , up to and including termination of employment .
He was the President of the company and answered literally to only two people .
Guess what ?
The dude did n't care , and did what he wanted all the time .
We ended up wiping and restoring his data almost monthly .
Policies are worthless unless they can be applied to everyone , regardless of rank , equally .
My opinion : the guy should have been fired .
Reality : every 6 months we bought him a brand new laptop ( he controlled the purse-strings too ) .
Brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, true.
However, there is one flaw in that argument, which is one that I used all the time: corner office syndrome.
People who have "rank" and are things like "President of such-and-such" seem to think they are immune to policy.
We had one who signed (I was a witness) the official PC and computer use policy agreement, where it said that not following directives would result in penalties, up to and including termination of employment.
He was the President of the company and answered literally to only two people.
Guess what?
The dude didn't care, and did what he wanted all the time.
We ended up wiping and restoring his data almost monthly.
Policies are worthless unless they can be applied to everyone, regardless of rank, equally.
My opinion: the guy should have been fired.
Reality: every 6 months we bought him a brand new laptop (he controlled the purse-strings too).
Brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360527</id>
	<title>Avast for Linux</title>
	<author>Nomaxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1245248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Avast offers a Linux version for centralized filesystem and mail protection.

Pricing is $9.69/year per licenses for 20-49 licenses. There's one license per mailbox.

Here's the full pricelist: <a href="http://www.avast.com/eng/pricelist-avast-for-linux-unix-server.html" title="avast.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.avast.com/eng/pricelist-avast-for-linux-unix-server.html</a> [avast.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Avast offers a Linux version for centralized filesystem and mail protection .
Pricing is $ 9.69/year per licenses for 20-49 licenses .
There 's one license per mailbox .
Here 's the full pricelist : http : //www.avast.com/eng/pricelist-avast-for-linux-unix-server.html [ avast.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avast offers a Linux version for centralized filesystem and mail protection.
Pricing is $9.69/year per licenses for 20-49 licenses.
There's one license per mailbox.
Here's the full pricelist: http://www.avast.com/eng/pricelist-avast-for-linux-unix-server.html [avast.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358135</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have to agree with this recommendation.</p><p>I've been installing NOD32 at several sites recently.  The Business version of their antivirus/antispyware package does include a Management Console feature.</p><p>You'll end up paying about $39/seat for a 2 year subscription.</p><p>Also, NOD32 just won a Consumer Reports award this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have to agree with this recommendation.I 've been installing NOD32 at several sites recently .
The Business version of their antivirus/antispyware package does include a Management Console feature.You 'll end up paying about $ 39/seat for a 2 year subscription.Also , NOD32 just won a Consumer Reports award this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have to agree with this recommendation.I've been installing NOD32 at several sites recently.
The Business version of their antivirus/antispyware package does include a Management Console feature.You'll end up paying about $39/seat for a 2 year subscription.Also, NOD32 just won a Consumer Reports award this year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28363463</id>
	<title>Its called evolution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hardy survive, and the weak don't.</p><p>I view viruses as the normal and expected end of any windows installation, and welcome said end. (Needless to say, I don't run windows for anything except for playing a few old games on machines that *never* connect to the Internet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardy survive , and the weak do n't.I view viruses as the normal and expected end of any windows installation , and welcome said end .
( Needless to say , I do n't run windows for anything except for playing a few old games on machines that * never * connect to the Internet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardy survive, and the weak don't.I view viruses as the normal and expected end of any windows installation, and welcome said end.
(Needless to say, I don't run windows for anything except for playing a few old games on machines that *never* connect to the Internet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360605</id>
	<title>Sophos</title>
	<author>cavaughan</author>
	<datestamp>1245248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sophos is what you need!
Check it out at www.sophos.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sophos is what you need !
Check it out at www.sophos.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sophos is what you need!
Check it out at www.sophos.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358825</id>
	<title>comodo if you don't have the budget</title>
	<author>Verunks</author>
	<datestamp>1245229920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since my company doesn't have the budget, I have tried to find something free but I failed, in the end I installed comodo av which is free, it can't be remotely managed, but it's far better than clamav, I've scheduled an automatic scan at 1pm during launch break, and it does automatic updates too, if you need to administer it remotely just install vnc on each client, 20 aren't that much</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since my company does n't have the budget , I have tried to find something free but I failed , in the end I installed comodo av which is free , it ca n't be remotely managed , but it 's far better than clamav , I 've scheduled an automatic scan at 1pm during launch break , and it does automatic updates too , if you need to administer it remotely just install vnc on each client , 20 are n't that much</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since my company doesn't have the budget, I have tried to find something free but I failed, in the end I installed comodo av which is free, it can't be remotely managed, but it's far better than clamav, I've scheduled an automatic scan at 1pm during launch break, and it does automatic updates too, if you need to administer it remotely just install vnc on each client, 20 aren't that much</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364647</id>
	<title>Re:Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Both my university and workplace (of similar size to yours) use Sophos. They provide a number of centralised management tools, centralised update servers etc.<br>Check them out, www.sophos.com.au.</p></div><p>We use sophos as well. Excellent application suite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both my university and workplace ( of similar size to yours ) use Sophos .
They provide a number of centralised management tools , centralised update servers etc.Check them out , www.sophos.com.au.We use sophos as well .
Excellent application suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both my university and workplace (of similar size to yours) use Sophos.
They provide a number of centralised management tools, centralised update servers etc.Check them out, www.sophos.com.au.We use sophos as well.
Excellent application suite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362279</id>
	<title>Go for Nod32</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had unpleasant experiences with Norton and Avast in the past.<br>Friends sent me Trojan horses and they were not detected at all. However when I installed Nod32 they were detected and blocked automatically.<br>So since then I am using Nod and I am very happy with it.<br>I've found Panda very good also but it eats more resources (however it has firewall integrated).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had unpleasant experiences with Norton and Avast in the past.Friends sent me Trojan horses and they were not detected at all .
However when I installed Nod32 they were detected and blocked automatically.So since then I am using Nod and I am very happy with it.I 've found Panda very good also but it eats more resources ( however it has firewall integrated ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had unpleasant experiences with Norton and Avast in the past.Friends sent me Trojan horses and they were not detected at all.
However when I installed Nod32 they were detected and blocked automatically.So since then I am using Nod and I am very happy with it.I've found Panda very good also but it eats more resources (however it has firewall integrated).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361611</id>
	<title>We are looking to get off of Trend.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a sysadmin at a company thats grown from 10 users to 100. We are using Trend currently and it doesn't seem to be doing the job thoroughly.</p><p>When I worked at MIT we used McAfee... I worked there for two years and managed thousands of machines and rarely saw any Virus problems. When I did see them they were on outdated computers which hadn't been updated or maintained... Luckily for me if it was beyond a certain time period I could just have it replaced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p. (note: almost everyone at MIT had admin rights)</p><p>Here with Trend I'm seeing 3-4 computers per month on computers on which the users have no admin rights... what would you recommend? I'm thinking of using McAfee here... I have the corporate demo version 8.7i on my laptop now and I want to put it on a few things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a sysadmin at a company thats grown from 10 users to 100 .
We are using Trend currently and it does n't seem to be doing the job thoroughly.When I worked at MIT we used McAfee... I worked there for two years and managed thousands of machines and rarely saw any Virus problems .
When I did see them they were on outdated computers which had n't been updated or maintained... Luckily for me if it was beyond a certain time period I could just have it replaced : -p. ( note : almost everyone at MIT had admin rights ) Here with Trend I 'm seeing 3-4 computers per month on computers on which the users have no admin rights... what would you recommend ?
I 'm thinking of using McAfee here... I have the corporate demo version 8.7i on my laptop now and I want to put it on a few things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a sysadmin at a company thats grown from 10 users to 100.
We are using Trend currently and it doesn't seem to be doing the job thoroughly.When I worked at MIT we used McAfee... I worked there for two years and managed thousands of machines and rarely saw any Virus problems.
When I did see them they were on outdated computers which hadn't been updated or maintained... Luckily for me if it was beyond a certain time period I could just have it replaced :-p. (note: almost everyone at MIT had admin rights)Here with Trend I'm seeing 3-4 computers per month on computers on which the users have no admin rights... what would you recommend?
I'm thinking of using McAfee here... I have the corporate demo version 8.7i on my laptop now and I want to put it on a few things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358835</id>
	<title>I've got some bad news for you</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1245230100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, first let me explain my assumptions, based largely on what you've said in the summary:</p><p>1.  Only 20 or so PCs, no full-time admin.</p><p>It's probably a small company, so there's a strong chance that individual staff don't have roles sufficiently specialised that you can simply disable removeable media and block internet access to 90\% of staff.  Even if you did that, one of the other 10\% would probably let something in and as soon as they do everyone else is vulnerable because there's no AV.</p><p>2.  Need centralised management.</p><p>I can relate to that.  Unfortunately, as I'm sure you've discovered, an awful lot of people seem to think "centralised management" means "can push it out remotely, though that may mean visiting each machine logically rather than physically".</p><p>Free Clue:  The OP can have centralised management like that by enabling remote desktop on every PC.  At the very least, s/he needs an interface that presents a list of machines found on the network and offers the option to select which machines on that list need to have the software installed.</p><p>3.  Having trouble justifying the money for Symantec Enterprise.</p><p>Ah.</p><p>Hate to break it to you, but I think you're asking for the moon.  Most of the free products I can think of do offer the features you require - but only in a souped-up commercial version of their product.</p><p>You <b>could</b> (if you haven't already) set up an LDAP server, have Samba act as a domain controller and then push everything out that way.  However, you'll only get the equivalent of an NT4 domain, which is very primitive compared to AD in terms of remote management of groups of computers.  You'd almost certainly spend any money you saved on the time it would take to lash something together yourself - which will still not be anything like as sophisticated as AD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , first let me explain my assumptions , based largely on what you 've said in the summary : 1 .
Only 20 or so PCs , no full-time admin.It 's probably a small company , so there 's a strong chance that individual staff do n't have roles sufficiently specialised that you can simply disable removeable media and block internet access to 90 \ % of staff .
Even if you did that , one of the other 10 \ % would probably let something in and as soon as they do everyone else is vulnerable because there 's no AV.2 .
Need centralised management.I can relate to that .
Unfortunately , as I 'm sure you 've discovered , an awful lot of people seem to think " centralised management " means " can push it out remotely , though that may mean visiting each machine logically rather than physically " .Free Clue : The OP can have centralised management like that by enabling remote desktop on every PC .
At the very least , s/he needs an interface that presents a list of machines found on the network and offers the option to select which machines on that list need to have the software installed.3 .
Having trouble justifying the money for Symantec Enterprise.Ah.Hate to break it to you , but I think you 're asking for the moon .
Most of the free products I can think of do offer the features you require - but only in a souped-up commercial version of their product.You could ( if you have n't already ) set up an LDAP server , have Samba act as a domain controller and then push everything out that way .
However , you 'll only get the equivalent of an NT4 domain , which is very primitive compared to AD in terms of remote management of groups of computers .
You 'd almost certainly spend any money you saved on the time it would take to lash something together yourself - which will still not be anything like as sophisticated as AD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, first let me explain my assumptions, based largely on what you've said in the summary:1.
Only 20 or so PCs, no full-time admin.It's probably a small company, so there's a strong chance that individual staff don't have roles sufficiently specialised that you can simply disable removeable media and block internet access to 90\% of staff.
Even if you did that, one of the other 10\% would probably let something in and as soon as they do everyone else is vulnerable because there's no AV.2.
Need centralised management.I can relate to that.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you've discovered, an awful lot of people seem to think "centralised management" means "can push it out remotely, though that may mean visiting each machine logically rather than physically".Free Clue:  The OP can have centralised management like that by enabling remote desktop on every PC.
At the very least, s/he needs an interface that presents a list of machines found on the network and offers the option to select which machines on that list need to have the software installed.3.
Having trouble justifying the money for Symantec Enterprise.Ah.Hate to break it to you, but I think you're asking for the moon.
Most of the free products I can think of do offer the features you require - but only in a souped-up commercial version of their product.You could (if you haven't already) set up an LDAP server, have Samba act as a domain controller and then push everything out that way.
However, you'll only get the equivalent of an NT4 domain, which is very primitive compared to AD in terms of remote management of groups of computers.
You'd almost certainly spend any money you saved on the time it would take to lash something together yourself - which will still not be anything like as sophisticated as AD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361833</id>
	<title>IT: Central Anti-Virus For Small Business?</title>
	<author>THe SToBBSTeR</author>
	<datestamp>1245255180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to get rid of most malware issues setup the host file to block malicious hosts and add servers on the net. This works very well for me along with using clamwinav on the xp boxes. I also make sure that spybot is installed as well. All 3 work great together.

You can get the modified host file here   <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip" title="mvps.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip</a> [mvps.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to get rid of most malware issues setup the host file to block malicious hosts and add servers on the net .
This works very well for me along with using clamwinav on the xp boxes .
I also make sure that spybot is installed as well .
All 3 work great together .
You can get the modified host file here http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip [ mvps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to get rid of most malware issues setup the host file to block malicious hosts and add servers on the net.
This works very well for me along with using clamwinav on the xp boxes.
I also make sure that spybot is installed as well.
All 3 work great together.
You can get the modified host file here   http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip [mvps.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28367287</id>
	<title>Security is Like Ogres</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1245238320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Antivirus? Sure, but don't expect it to work all by itself. Desktop security is never going to be 100\%, far from it. IMO, the best you can do is combine policy with good systems, and edumcate your users.

Lock down your I/O, some sort of end-point security product that'll lock/audit USB and DVD drives.
Filter mail and strip dangerous attachments - park attachments for 24 hours if possible.
Turn on auditing with group policy, and check the damn logs.
Run some sort of IDS, Snort can be tuned to monitor the LAN for malware trying to propagate.
Have good enforceable policies, and educate your users to the reasoning and consequences.
Get management on-board. Having the top dog issue a broadcast email is always more effective than the IT guy doing the same.Follow through when you find someone in breach of policy. It only takes one or two cases before word gets around and users realise you're serious.

Try to get onside with users, but it's not your job to be liked. Your job is to protect the data and systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus ?
Sure , but do n't expect it to work all by itself .
Desktop security is never going to be 100 \ % , far from it .
IMO , the best you can do is combine policy with good systems , and edumcate your users .
Lock down your I/O , some sort of end-point security product that 'll lock/audit USB and DVD drives .
Filter mail and strip dangerous attachments - park attachments for 24 hours if possible .
Turn on auditing with group policy , and check the damn logs .
Run some sort of IDS , Snort can be tuned to monitor the LAN for malware trying to propagate .
Have good enforceable policies , and educate your users to the reasoning and consequences .
Get management on-board .
Having the top dog issue a broadcast email is always more effective than the IT guy doing the same.Follow through when you find someone in breach of policy .
It only takes one or two cases before word gets around and users realise you 're serious .
Try to get onside with users , but it 's not your job to be liked .
Your job is to protect the data and systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus?
Sure, but don't expect it to work all by itself.
Desktop security is never going to be 100\%, far from it.
IMO, the best you can do is combine policy with good systems, and edumcate your users.
Lock down your I/O, some sort of end-point security product that'll lock/audit USB and DVD drives.
Filter mail and strip dangerous attachments - park attachments for 24 hours if possible.
Turn on auditing with group policy, and check the damn logs.
Run some sort of IDS, Snort can be tuned to monitor the LAN for malware trying to propagate.
Have good enforceable policies, and educate your users to the reasoning and consequences.
Get management on-board.
Having the top dog issue a broadcast email is always more effective than the IT guy doing the same.Follow through when you find someone in breach of policy.
It only takes one or two cases before word gets around and users realise you're serious.
Try to get onside with users, but it's not your job to be liked.
Your job is to protect the data and systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361649</id>
	<title>Do what the U.S. Navy does.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've disabled ALL USB access, and will terminate your user account if they find logs proving you tried using a USB device. As for AV, it is the users responsibility to keep the governments machines up to date on virus definitions...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've disabled ALL USB access , and will terminate your user account if they find logs proving you tried using a USB device .
As for AV , it is the users responsibility to keep the governments machines up to date on virus definitions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've disabled ALL USB access, and will terminate your user account if they find logs proving you tried using a USB device.
As for AV, it is the users responsibility to keep the governments machines up to date on virus definitions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362531</id>
	<title>Re:Start with sensible policies.</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know all those custom/small-market apps that require people to still run Windows, even if they could otherwise use another OS? The ones that don't run in Wine? Those are the same apps that require admin rights to run. The same apps that must be installed locally instead of on a network drive. The same apps that require letter-mapped drives instead of real path names.</p><p>I'm glad you don't have to use any such apps, but they haven't gone away, and likely won't, at least not in the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know all those custom/small-market apps that require people to still run Windows , even if they could otherwise use another OS ?
The ones that do n't run in Wine ?
Those are the same apps that require admin rights to run .
The same apps that must be installed locally instead of on a network drive .
The same apps that require letter-mapped drives instead of real path names.I 'm glad you do n't have to use any such apps , but they have n't gone away , and likely wo n't , at least not in the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know all those custom/small-market apps that require people to still run Windows, even if they could otherwise use another OS?
The ones that don't run in Wine?
Those are the same apps that require admin rights to run.
The same apps that must be installed locally instead of on a network drive.
The same apps that require letter-mapped drives instead of real path names.I'm glad you don't have to use any such apps, but they haven't gone away, and likely won't, at least not in the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28369547</id>
	<title>I use Sophos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at Sophos Antivirus. It's worked well for my clients in Reno and support most OS's including Mac's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at Sophos Antivirus .
It 's worked well for my clients in Reno and support most OS 's including Mac 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at Sophos Antivirus.
It's worked well for my clients in Reno and support most OS's including Mac's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358607</id>
	<title>Trendmirco.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally have great experiences with the trendmicro solution. I love the central web interface from where you can view reports, scheduele updates, view infections and unprotected PC's,  etc..... All of these clients use the Mircosoft Small Business Server  2003. So I have no experience with Linux clients.</p><p>I installed it with various small business clients. Never had any problems with it in the last 4 years.</p><p>http://emea.trendmicro.com/emea/home/small-business/index.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally have great experiences with the trendmicro solution .
I love the central web interface from where you can view reports , scheduele updates , view infections and unprotected PC 's , etc..... All of these clients use the Mircosoft Small Business Server 2003 .
So I have no experience with Linux clients.I installed it with various small business clients .
Never had any problems with it in the last 4 years.http : //emea.trendmicro.com/emea/home/small-business/index.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally have great experiences with the trendmicro solution.
I love the central web interface from where you can view reports, scheduele updates, view infections and unprotected PC's,  etc..... All of these clients use the Mircosoft Small Business Server  2003.
So I have no experience with Linux clients.I installed it with various small business clients.
Never had any problems with it in the last 4 years.http://emea.trendmicro.com/emea/home/small-business/index.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358997</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1245232260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime new virus appears, there is lag before it is discovered, lag before it is dissected and lag before updates reach machines. There is zero chance that any AV will protect anyone from brand new virus (heuristics still being in "nice try" stage).</p><p>There is just no way around it.</p><p>AVs do not really protect you from bleeding edge attacks, they just make you feel fuzzy and safe while keeping you safe from threats that have already passed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime new virus appears , there is lag before it is discovered , lag before it is dissected and lag before updates reach machines .
There is zero chance that any AV will protect anyone from brand new virus ( heuristics still being in " nice try " stage ) .There is just no way around it.AVs do not really protect you from bleeding edge attacks , they just make you feel fuzzy and safe while keeping you safe from threats that have already passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime new virus appears, there is lag before it is discovered, lag before it is dissected and lag before updates reach machines.
There is zero chance that any AV will protect anyone from brand new virus (heuristics still being in "nice try" stage).There is just no way around it.AVs do not really protect you from bleeding edge attacks, they just make you feel fuzzy and safe while keeping you safe from threats that have already passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359393</id>
	<title>It's all about the apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't mean this to be smug or smartass</i> </p><p>This works only if your core business apps are available for OSX.</p><p> But I have to ask why it makes sense to leave the door wide open to the installation of any random piece of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean this to be smug or smartass This works only if your core business apps are available for OSX .
But I have to ask why it makes sense to leave the door wide open to the installation of any random piece of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean this to be smug or smartass This works only if your core business apps are available for OSX.
But I have to ask why it makes sense to leave the door wide open to the installation of any random piece of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358617</id>
	<title>Re:the problem is the OS</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now we're very happy with the solution.</p></div><p>Does OSX have a better <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/132733/2008/03/hack.html" title="macworld.com">security record</a> [macworld.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we 're very happy with the solution.Does OSX have a better security record [ macworld.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we're very happy with the solution.Does OSX have a better security record [macworld.com]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360269</id>
	<title>Re:comodo if you don't have the budget</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1245246480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comodo was OK back when it was ONLY the AV. Now its a bunch of shit integrated horribly into one.....trying to uninstall it and sometimes update it reminds me of Norton or McAfee. I'd avoid it like the plague.</p><p>The only true free solution left besides Comodo for businesses is Rising antivirus, but I haven't seen any performace tests of it yet by the popular magazines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comodo was OK back when it was ONLY the AV .
Now its a bunch of shit integrated horribly into one.....trying to uninstall it and sometimes update it reminds me of Norton or McAfee .
I 'd avoid it like the plague.The only true free solution left besides Comodo for businesses is Rising antivirus , but I have n't seen any performace tests of it yet by the popular magazines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comodo was OK back when it was ONLY the AV.
Now its a bunch of shit integrated horribly into one.....trying to uninstall it and sometimes update it reminds me of Norton or McAfee.
I'd avoid it like the plague.The only true free solution left besides Comodo for businesses is Rising antivirus, but I haven't seen any performace tests of it yet by the popular magazines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358779</id>
	<title>AV-Comparatives Corporate Report</title>
	<author>Ralish</author>
	<datestamp>1245229320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AV-Comparatives recently released their <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/corporate/Corporate\_May\_2009.pdf" title="av-comparatives.org">May 2009 Corporate AV Report</a> [av-comparatives.org], which sounds like it may be right up your alley.</p><p>It's fairly large, but reviews a large number of AV products with a corporate focus, contains lots of screenshots, and even grades them on their appropriateness for Small, Medium and Large networks. Sounds like it would definitely be worth a look in your case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AV-Comparatives recently released their May 2009 Corporate AV Report [ av-comparatives.org ] , which sounds like it may be right up your alley.It 's fairly large , but reviews a large number of AV products with a corporate focus , contains lots of screenshots , and even grades them on their appropriateness for Small , Medium and Large networks .
Sounds like it would definitely be worth a look in your case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AV-Comparatives recently released their May 2009 Corporate AV Report [av-comparatives.org], which sounds like it may be right up your alley.It's fairly large, but reviews a large number of AV products with a corporate focus, contains lots of screenshots, and even grades them on their appropriateness for Small, Medium and Large networks.
Sounds like it would definitely be worth a look in your case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358539</id>
	<title>Re:We use Nod32</title>
	<author>notarockstar1979</author>
	<datestamp>1245269820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've had just the opposite experience with Nod32 at my day job.  It's picked up things some of the bigger players (McCaffee, Norton/Symantec) couldn't find.  It's also been incredibly easy to manage.

That said, I use Avira at my home based business and it's worked out really well for me.  I've never tried to centrally manage it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had just the opposite experience with Nod32 at my day job .
It 's picked up things some of the bigger players ( McCaffee , Norton/Symantec ) could n't find .
It 's also been incredibly easy to manage .
That said , I use Avira at my home based business and it 's worked out really well for me .
I 've never tried to centrally manage it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had just the opposite experience with Nod32 at my day job.
It's picked up things some of the bigger players (McCaffee, Norton/Symantec) couldn't find.
It's also been incredibly easy to manage.
That said, I use Avira at my home based business and it's worked out really well for me.
I've never tried to centrally manage it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28389023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28366603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2126231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28366603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28363603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28389023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358535
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358997
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28368809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28364147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28367287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28362531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28365457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2126231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28358737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28361015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28359635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2126231.28360649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
