should I buy a new antivirus program?

[jes]

I have a small network with data that I need to protect. I am running NAV 2004 now. I have had it since last July. I keep the virus definitions updated often. I would like to hear some ideas about the necessity of up-grading to NAV 2005 or waiting for NAV 2006.

[NiemA]

Hi jes,

Go to e-mail problem under application&security read that post "don't know how to link you to that thread' ;)

[pop pop]

What kind a network? Home or office? I assume you are using an enterprise edition that can protect multiple nodes? Or are you using multiple licenses?

Maybe more to the point, when you say upgrade to 2005 or wait till 2006, are you indicating rolling the dice and going unprotected from new threats for a while? I WOULD NOT DO THAT on anything containing data I need protected.

Answer the above questions and we can advise. Don't expect a blanket endorsement of any version of NAV or Norton products in general, except maybe Partition Magic and Ghost--whcih they really acquired, rather than created.

[pentachris]

Partition Magic and Ghost--whcih they really acquired, rather than created.
Thread drift, but I'm pretty sure that Norton created Ghost.

[jes]

It is a small office network of 5 XP PCs. We currently have 5 licences for NAV 2004. Those licences terminate in July. I am just wondering if I should stay with 2004 or move up to a newer version (or even move to something other than NAV alltogether).

[david eaton]

Why not check the cost of AVG? It is likely to be cheaper than Norton, and as it uses less resources, the computers should be a bit faster. It is, IMHO as effective as Norton, too!

[pop pop]

Being that you are a commercial enterprise, I believe that rules out the "free" versions of some very good AV programs like AVG and AVAST. If the load NAV puts on your systems is not and issue, if you have been happy with NAV, it's probably a tough call as to whether to jump ship to another vendor. ONe thing I would not do, like I already said, is roll the dice and go unprotected from new threats. I'm sure your data and your day to day business operations are worth more than the cost of five licenses.

I'm not an expert on enterprise AV solutions. Perhaps one of the others here is.

[Steve]

If you already have Norton 2004 and are happy with it, I don't see any reason to upgrade to 2005. Just make sure that you sign up for another year of updates.

Norton is kind of bloated but I think it's a very good AV.

[FrankSG]

I had 2004 and now I have 2005. If there's a difference, I can't see it. I don't think there's anything wrong with 2004. But, as Steve said, be sure to use Live Update so that you stay current on that.

[pop pop]

Whoops. I guess I misunderstood the question a bit.

My answer would generally be no, do not "upgrade" from 2004 to 2005. I think Norton/Symantec allows at least a three year support window (maybe longer). Meaning, for example, customers who have a Norton AV 200x product can continue to subscribe for at least three years and not be forced to upgrade to the 200x+1, 2, or 3 product until the end of 200x+3. For their AV package, there's really no compelling reason to pay for what is basically the same application again. All it really does is move the support window to the right.

[PrntRhd]

PopPop is correct on the three year cycle for NAV version support.
I would submit should also look into the Corporate NAV option when these finish their subscription cycle. It will give you a trimmer AV as it does not have all the bloat, and gives you easier control of the licenses for the numbers of PCs covered.
:)

[saphalline]

For a small network like this, it still makes sense to use individual licenses if you already have them. Especially if your AV updates will continue for another two years!

For future reference, or when your network gets larger, you may want to invest in a dedicated firewall PC. This will eliminate the need for node overhead (ie having the same program on each PC) and will probably protect your network better. You wouldn't need a screamer of a PC, either. Any old 1GHz system will work fine, running something like Win2K or WinServer or even a version of Linux. If you have the expertise, definitely look into this option.

[deddard]

I'd look at other AVs as well - NAV is a good system, but notoriously slow at scans.
I use NOD32 (which can be bought as a corporate edition) which is reputedly one of the best around (their advertising says they've never missed an in-the-wild virus for years) - it is updated regularly ( you'll sometimes get several virus definition updates in a day) and is blisteringly quick compared to NAV - whereas NAV would take 30-40 minutes to do a full deep scan, NOD32 takes around 10 minutes.
Do check out some of the other manufacturers before deciding to upgrade - you will get plenty of opinions as to which is the best.

My one gripe with NOD32 is that home-users don't get a 'mirror' option (to create a backup of virus definitions) which is a big problem for me.

[jes]

Why would home users of NOD32 need a mirror option for the virus definitions?
I am going to download a trial version of NOD32 to see how the interface is and such. I am the only network administrator here and I am gone for months at a time so I need an AV that is relatively maintenance-free. The reason that I like NAV is because you can set it to do its own scans and update its own virus definitions. A faster and less bloated version would be nice though. I have never heard of this NOD32 but I am interested in seeing how it works.

[pop pop]

As already stated, NOD32 is extremely accurate and fast. It's interface is not geared toward the casual user, it's a bit geeky. Still, I don't think it's overly intimidating and an admin type might actually like it. If I was going to pay, out of all the AV apps I've tried, I would probably go with NOD32.

[Fruss Tray Ted]

I'll also put in a nod for NOD32 ;)

[jdbaines]

One thing to remember about Norton Live Update - Norton say that they only update the Live Update files on a weekly basis, but direct downloads from their site (under name of Symantec) are updated virtually daily.

[pop pop]

Norton say that they only update the Live Update files on a weekly basis

That's the "officail" position. It is really the minimal position. The fact is, Norton really updates based on outbreak activity and threat. I've seen them live-update several times a week and even one day after another when bad stuff is going on.

[deddard]

Reason for NOD32 Mirror - you can simply save a mirror to a usb stick, so if your system goes up the creek you have up-to-date definitions immediately to hand when you reload your system. (there doesn't appear to be a download option for NOD32 definitions separately, as there is for other AVs such as Norton or Macafee)

[classicsoftware]

I personally prefer Avast. The pay version is excellent, it updates frequently and really is not a memory hog.

[joea64]

I'm on AVG (Free Edition) myself. I installed it on my new system when I set it up and then switched from NAV on my old Athlon XP system when the subscription expired. You might want to try the free version on your home system and see if you think it might meet your enterprise's needs.

[jes]

I tried NOD32 and whenever I scanned my entire computer it would pop up an error message saying that I either had no defalt mail client or it couldn't fullfill the request. I had OE6 set as default and it was working well. Instead of trying to fix it, I decieded to get the AVG for pay. It will cost about half as much as NAV will and I have heard alot of good things about AVG. Plus, I have the free version on my home computer. It is a wonderful program and I don't think that it takes up as many resources.