Not all AV is the same
For a while now I have been on and on about the failings of Certain Anti-Virus brands. Not that I am alone in that. The 2 largest targets of my scorn have Symantec and McAfee. These are resource HOGS!!! Sure there are others. but IMHO they just suck. The consume valuable resource on machines and often do not protect well enough. I am frequently called upon to remove a virus that has infected a network because one operator in the peer to peer network forgot to update or heaven forbid neglected to pay for an AV agreement after the 90-day trial when they bought a new Dell or HP/Compaq desktop.
So while reviewing some old TechRepublic articles I came across a reference to a blog post that quantifies the reasoning behind my ire...
I have known for a long time the failings of AV and typically employ a multi-layer, multi-vendor approach to AV in a network. It is good to see some numbers that justify my concern and disdain for some and my adoration of others.
From backup and recovery to Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware, my primary goal to is to measure a clients recovery goals and pain awareness and match that to their budget. In other words how much are they willing to deal with in terms of Spam, in terms of down-time in various cases of emergency, and then build an overall package of software, hardware and services that match up within the budget and the risk factors. Generally, I see more and more quality low-cost solutions in that space. One of my biggest things for AV is the nature of the scanning, both live and on-demand. It seems to me that the big players in the AV market have big targets on them and so every script kiddie and Mountain Dew Junkie hacks specifically to disable and subvert the big AV products.
If you need help determining your risk tolerance, let me know. I'll be happy to work with you and find the right solution for you.