Server Environment: Additional Malware Protection

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by TheKid7, Sep 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,469
    Server Environment: Additional Malware Protection

    Please suggest additional Malware prevention software and/or procedures in a Server environment. The Server environment does not have Internet Access. However, USB Flash Drives are sometimes attached to these Servers along with sometimes installing software from DVD's/CD's.

    Operating Systems: Windows XP Pro (32 bit) & Windows 2003 Server (32 bit)
    Antivirus Software: McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.7i

    Thanks in Advance.
     
  2. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    977
    Location:
    Paris
    Not so much as an addition but as an alternative: Have you considered Comodo?

    http://enterprise.comodo.com/security-solutions/endpoint-security/endpoint-security-manager/index.php

    It is really excellent, and has a number of advantages over Mcafee:

    1). It uses MUCH less resources. If your system has the normal Mickey Mouse workstations performance will improve (face it- Mcafee is a pig).

    2). It would cost you $12 max per endpoint- unless you have more than 10 stations, then the cost will decrease.

    3). Comodo blows away Mcafee in protection and ease of maintenance.
     
  3. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    The most secure policy/procedure is that individuals at workstations cannot run executables from external media. Only the System Administrator can do so. A Group Policy can easily enforce this.


    ----
    rich
     
  4. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    977
    Location:
    Paris
    Agreed. That environment sounds more like the wild west. Porno sites may be safer. But that's why something much better than old Mcafee should be considered.
     
  5. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,469
    I would like to recommend to switch to a more effective Antivirus.

    However, some of the Windows XP Pro machines are running SP1 or SP2. It is my understanding that there are some issues with special software applications not running on SP2 and SP3. McAfee VirusScan Enterprise's System Requirements do not list a minimum Service Pack Requirement for Windows XP Pro. Kaspersky's Endpoint Security 8 for Windows shows a minimum System Requirement of SP3 for Windows XP Pro 32 bit. Bitdefender Client Security shows a minimum System Requirement of Windows XP Pro SP2.

    Does anyone know of a good Enterprise Antivirus product that will work on Windows XP Pro SP1 32 bit?

    Thanks in Advance.
     
  6. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    977
    Location:
    Paris
    What would be the reason for not updating XP? Updating the OS should be the rock bottom mandate in securing the environment.
     
  7. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,469
    The reason is something related to software compatibility.
     
  8. ComputerSaysNo

    ComputerSaysNo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,425
    Symnatec Endpoint protection or Microsoft Endpoint protection.
     
  9. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,469
    It looks like both of those require at least SP2.
     
  10. ComputerSaysNo

    ComputerSaysNo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,425
    I'd upgrade to the latest service pack then. Compatibility shouldn't be an issue. What type of programs are the workstations using?

    Webroot has a Endpoint solution, check that out. I can't imagine it needing specific service pack to use.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.