Second AV Scanner Suggestions

[Glenn Steen]

On 24/09/2007, Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Glenn Steen wrote:
> > On 24/09/2007, Johnny Stork <stork at openenterprise.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks to everyone that has responded. I went with BitDefender.
> >>
> >> Now how can I confirm it is actually being used? I updated "Virus
> >> Scanners = clamd bitdefender" but how do I know its being used?
> >>
> >>
> > MailScanner --lint
> > ... if you have a reasonably fresh install of MS, that will do a test
> > run with EICAR for all your defined scanners.
> >
> > If I'd choose anything extra ATM, I would be a bit ... hesitant...
> > about BitDefender. It is a tad "fat" on resources. It does do a good
> > job (I've been happy with BDC, ClamAV and McAfee (which we have "for
> > free" by way of our site license), each has taken turn in "getting at
> > the bad stuff", don't get me wrong), but ... the new version needs
> > support (I've been away for a while, haven't checked the latest beta
> > of MS... might be there:) in MS... It installs to a new location and
> > has renamed the scanner from bdc to bdscanner... and maybe more...
> >
> What changes do you think I need to make to the distribution? I didn't
> know about this.

There was a thread about it (amongst other things) last week, or the
week before... What I *think* is needed is basically a test for bdc or
bdscan (and a change to the install directory in
virus.scanners.conf)... perhaps a change to use double-dash on the
long options (if you don't do that already... I'm busy playing DBA
this week... don't have time to check things properly:-). The new
package installs to /opt/Bitdefender-scanner, so that change should be
trivial.

My suspiocion is that they've basically changed as little as possible,
just enough to foist the new license on us... If you have the 7.0/7.1
RPM installed, the install of the 7.5 package will replace it... Kind
of shows what they think:-). Anyway, it _should_ be rather trivial to
implement support for the latest and greatest release:-).
I still think it worth the effort, supporting it as a truly commercial
scanner...

But as said above... I'm fairly  busy with real work ATM, being DBA
and FW-adm virtually at the same time, putting out the fires that
"just happened" during the long weekend ... Kind of a punishment for
having fun in Italy:-):-).

> > I'd look elsewhere... f-prot, f-secure ... there are a lot of scanners
> > out there that do an OK job.
> >
> One of the reasons I like f-prot is that it is very light on resources
> and is very fast.
>
> Jules
>

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se