Macafee antivirus software
elmarsa
At a recent senior computer users group meeting it was pointed out to
me that the available retail edition of mcafee antivirus (I presume
this is the latest edition) really messes up win98. I was advised
not to install it but to stay with the present version. I subscribe
to the mcafee updating service and am concerned about renewing next
year in the event that on upgrading mcafee installs the latest version
of their software. What if anything do you experts know about this
potential problem. Any information is appreciated in advance.
elmarsa
thewal...@lycos.com
Heather
(with WinME, not 98)......but there are other a-v's out there that should
work with your computer. And none of them are all that expensive compared
to McAfee or Norton. Nod, AVG, Avast and so on.
Heather
"elmarsa" <thewal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6lf4q0psl12lvtd62...@4ax.com...
Ian Kenefick
> At a recent senior computer users group meeting it was pointed out to
> me that the available retail edition of mcafee antivirus (I presume
> this is the latest edition) really messes up win98.
Reason: There is a certain bias within software development labs to
making apps work better on more recent versions of the windows platform.
Their retail version leaves a lot to be desired when you compare it to
that of their Enterprise version.
> I was advised
> not to install it but to stay with the present version.
Good call!
> What if anything do you experts know about this
> potential problem.
McAfee's more recent retail/home versions are fluffy, convoluted pieces
of shit with good virus detection. Not friendly to the aging Windows 98
at all.
Alternative: www.nod32.com from ESET. Their NOD32 antivirus system has a
winNT/2K/XP & specific version for Win 98/ME This is an excellent
resource friendly piece of kit with a plain user interface and most
importantly excellent virus detection and good support.
Any information is appreciated in advance.
I trust this is ok :-)
--
Regards,
Ian Kenefick
~http://www.IK-CS.com
~ian_kenefi...@eircom.net
<USENET>
remove "no-spam_" from my address when replying.
Brian
> At a recent senior computer users group meeting it was pointed out to
> me that the available retail edition of mcafee antivirus (I presume
> this is the latest edition) really messes up win98. I was advised
> not to install it but to stay with the present version.
There is no need to upgrade your AV version provided that the current
version meets your needs and is able to detect the most current viruses.
Most AV companies have not released any AV software revision worth noting in
the past several years.
Brian
Bigbruva
It is important that the AV software does have a mechanism to update it's
virus signature files so that the application can detect the latest files.
If your subscription is about to expire you will loose this ability so you
should ensure that you have something in place that will keep the signatures
updated.
I have used (and recommend) Computer Associates eTrust EZ Armor which you
can get free for 12 months from the following link
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/
I have not used it on Win98 but it does claim to support this OS so it
should work okay for you.
I hope that helps and good luck, let us know how you get on
BB
"Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> wrote in message
news:O7ymt3W0...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
kurt wismer
this is false... virus scanning engines have their technology updated
all the time and newer virus definition files are made with those
updates in mind such that they won't work (ie. fail silently) with
older engines...
--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
edelbeb
than Win98 (probably due to Win98 resources problems), I've run current
Mcafee AV versions on my Win98 disk without significant problems. Then
again, I'm only using Win98 for games that fail under WinXP.
"elmarsa" <thewal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6lf4q0psl12lvtd62...@4ax.com...
Brian
> this is false... virus scanning engines have their technology updated
> all the time and newer virus definition files are made with those
> updates in mind such that they won't work (ie. fail silently) with
> older engines...
Baloney. Your theory smacks of FUD. "Oh, they will force your to buy the
newest version because the purposely write the updates to break in the older
version." Do you honestly think that an AV company would want that kind of
publicity? If you do, please provide proof if you want us to believe you.
My three year old anti-virus program uses exactly the same anti-virus update
files as the newest version. Both detect the same viruses.
Brian
David H. Lipman
relationship of the ENGINE and DAT files that leads to the ability to detect and clean any
given infector. If you don't update the ENGINE (for example the latest McAfee ENGINE is
4400) then at some point the McAfee DAT files won't work properly or to their fullest
capability. That is why McAfee has an End of Life (EoL) for ENGINE files.
The following is McAfee's own text on this subject.
Dave
~ ~ ~
McAfee Security Engine End-Of-Life (EOL) Program
IS YOUR ENGINE UP-TO-DATE? - Anti-virus is only as good as its last update!
Current Engine Information by platform:
- Microsoft: 4400
- Netware: 4320
- UNIX: 4400
- Macintosh OS X: 4240
Engine Security Tips from AVERT and the McAfee Security Engine Development Team
- Updating your DAT regularly files is essential and a MUST!
- Updating your scan engine is just as important and a MUST
- An old Engine WON'T catch some of today's threats
- Sometimes architectural changes to the way DAT files and scan
engine work together make it critical for you to update your scan engine
- AVERT says it makes sense to have as part of your Security Policy
- Program an Engine Update process to take advantage of the latest
technology and stay protected!
The Problem
Between 250 and 400 new detections are added to the DATs monthly by AVERT.
If you're not up-to-date, you are vulnerable to any one of them that gets a
foothold in the field (a.k.a. 'in the wild'). McAfee AVERT releases
regular DAT files, ensuring that full protection is added to all McAfee
products.
The DAT files contain the information required to detect and remove threats
- what to look for and where to look for it. However, today's threats are
evolving almost on a daily basis. Software providers continue to have
operating systems and applications changes that can change the way a
program acts or works and a virus-scanning program may not understand the
changes.
The Solution
Taking this into account McAfee Security regularly updates its scan engine
used by ALL McAfee Security virus detection and removal products. The
engine understands all the different structures in which a virus could lurk
- EXE files, MS Office files, Linux files, etc. Occasionally these changes
require us to make significant architectural changes to the engine as well
as the DAT files. AVERT strongly recommends users of ALL McAfee Security
virus scanning products update the scan engines in the products they have
deployed as part of a sound Security best practices program.
Here's how to check your engine version. Right-click on the McAfee shield
in the system tray, select 'About' and look at the 'Scan engine' version
number. If you need to update, you should update your scan engine
immediately.
McAfee Security Engine End-Of-Life (EOL) Program
Because of the evolving malicious code threat, users should update their
engines as soon as possible upon the release of McAfee Security's latest
scanning technology. When a new engine is released the existing engine
will begin its countdown to its EOL, and will therefore no longer be
supported by McAfee Security. Information on the McAfee Security Engine
End of Life policy and a full list of supported scan engines and products
can be found at: http://www.mcafeesecurity.com/us/products/mcafee/end_of_life.htm
Best Regards,
McAfee AVERT - Anti Virus and Vulnerability Research, Analysis, and
Solutions visit us at www.avertlabs.com
~ ~ ~
"Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> wrote in message
news:eLfqp%23v0EH...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
kurt wismer
i understand your misgivings, i wouldn't have thought it likely myself
if it weren't for the fact that the effects have actually been seen in
this group (alt.comp.virus) in the past...
here (http://tinyurl.com/44mow) is a post from dmitry gryaznov (a av
specialist for dr. solomons and later mcafee i believe) discussing this
very thing...
T-Bone
> Actually it is quite true. Especially in the case of McAfee software. It
is a symbiotic
> relationship of the ENGINE and DAT files that leads to the ability to
detect and clean any
> given infector. If you don't update the ENGINE (for example the latest
McAfee ENGINE is
> 4400) then at some point the McAfee DAT files won't work properly or to
their fullest
> capability. That is why McAfee has an End of Life (EoL) for ENGINE files.
I don't disagree with you there. However, it is not exactly a silent
approach as the previous poster was saying. If they make it obvious that
your AV will no longer work, then that's fine. Its also smarter on the part
of the AV company to do it that way then by FUD.
Mike Hall
updating Win 3.1 with the odd patch now and again.. of course, we see
visually what Windows does, and we accept that the change is necessary.. the
same applies to ALL software, whether or not we can see what is is doing..
While I am here, does anybody know where I can buy some bolt-on goodies for
my car?.. I want 4x4, active self levelling suspension, side impact
protection system, airbags, navigation computer, electrically adjustable
seats that are leather and heated, full surround sound stereo, and HID
lighting for now.. a relatively simple update, I would imagine.. I have no
technical experience whatsoever, hence the need for bolt-on parts.. my car
is a 1908 Ford Model T, painted black.. I would like the look of the car to
remain essentially stock.. have e-mailed Chip Foose, but as yet have had no
reply.. :).. PLEASE HELP.. I AM AT MY WITS END..
"T-Bone" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> wrote in message
news:Ojlo4D80...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Dave Skipper
I can tell you my McAfee is messing up my Win98SE. The problem arises
when McAfee shows up in the systray at the bottom right of the screen.
I go to start/run/msconfig/startup and remove all things McAfee, then
reboot. The computer works fine until McAfee show up in the tray again.
I had NAV before this and it worked fine with Win98SE.
I switched because we got a deal through my employer. McAfee takes a
long time to check too. Plus I wasn't happy with that plugin we had to
download to keep getting updates.
My two cents.
Dave Budd
@NOSPAMMYMAMMYadelphia.net says...
>
> I can tell you my McAfee is messing up my Win98SE. The problem arises
> when McAfee shows up in the systray at the bottom right of the screen.
> I go to start/run/msconfig/startup and remove all things McAfee, then
> reboot. The computer works fine until McAfee show up in the tray again.
> I had NAV before this and it worked fine with Win98SE.
>
> I switched because we got a deal through my employer. McAfee takes a
> long time to check too. Plus I wasn't happy with that plugin we had to
> download to keep getting updates.
>
> My two cents.
>
OK, I find.
I wouldn't touch NAV with yours - every semester I have to clean up a
couple of dozen laptops that had properly configured and updated
(apparently) NAV, that still got hit.
I think your best bet is to dump W98 and move to W2000. Or Linux -
there's a new distro out of Africa that's quite nice, called Ubuntu.
--
Post presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - scrollbars at
the sides of the screen are normal in this format. This high-definition
digital message was created on a run-of-the-mill PC from the restored
35mm negative. To further enhance it, many grammar and spelling errors
and other inaccuracies have been removed using the DB EBD-TC system.
Roger Wilco
"Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> wrote in message news:eLfqp%23v0EH...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is this AV program able to read an e-mail message body for the password to an attached zipfile? Why would it want to
have that ability three years ago? Why they would want to now is also a good question.
David H. Lipman
Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
under WinXP (and Win2K).
Dave L.
"Dave Budd" <ddot...@man.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c11693f5...@localnews.mcc.ac.uk...
Jurren Bouman [MVP - Security]
users" products. VirusScan Enterprise 4.5.1 SP1, VSE7.x and VSE8i are
totally different than what the original poster is talking about in his
post. The corporate products are running nicely on my systems. But I
really don't like the 'home users' products and they really need some
improvements.
David H. Lipman
with v8.0, they left out the McAfee Command Line Scanner, it does NOT allow the SuperDAT
executable to update the platform and it has a dependency upon IE. I addition, the
registration/updating process is flawed. I have v8.0 on a test WinME platform. It does
nothing except run SETI Command Line and when I periodically check it, it gives errors
updating it as if I never registered it. On another note, it allows one registration per
email address. So if you have a SOHO LAN with 5 platforms, it requires a different email
address for each platform.
Dave
"Jurren Bouman [MVP - Security]" <jur...@hotmail.nl> wrote in message
news:%23tF8WlI...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
kurt wismer
let's look at it this way - virus signature definition files tell the
scanner what to look for, but they don't tell the scanner *how* to look
for it... changes are made to the way a scanner looks for viruses
specifically because new viruses come along that don't fit the old way
(new infection schemes, new tricks, etc)... if you use the old scanning
engine with the new defs it's not going to be able to find those types
of viruses...
an End Of Life has to be planned well in advance, it can't occur
whenever one of these new viruses is discovered... all they can do for
that is create an engine upgrade and hope most people use it...
elmarsa
Thanks to all those that responded. The only problem I had with the
upgrade to build 9.0.10 was installing it. Just for background, I had
to reinstall the mcafee viruscan program because I contacted the Bagel
worm (can't remember the exact name) when I opened an e-mail
attachment while viruscan was in the process of updating itself. The
main problem was that the worm disabled virusscan and though I was
able to remove enough of the bad files to disable the worm I was not
able to uninstall all the remnants of the old program. By-the-way this
seems to be a common problem with uninstalling and reinstalling
programs. I think that all upgrade packages should include a cleaner
program such as that provided by mcafee on their support website.
When I cleaned out all the remnant garbage and intalled the download
everything has worked well since. I did notice that the engine has
been the same for a long time and I am wondering if that has changed
in new retail version. I haven't gotten around to posing my question
to mcafee but will get to it when I get more time. Thanks again to
all of you who have taken the time to respond.
elmarsa
Jurren Bouman [MVP - Security]
issue(s) at the McAfee Support Forum:
http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/
There's usually a McAfee tech available there and also forum moderaters
volunteers.
Dave Budd
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> McAfee Enterprise v4.5.1 with SP1 was extremely stable. No problems noted on W98, WinME and
> Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
> under WinXP (and Win2K).
>
I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
Dave Budd
ddot...@man.ac.uk says...
> In article <elWZu7#0EHA...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> > McAfee Enterprise v4.5.1 with SP1 was extremely stable. No problems noted on W98, WinME and
> > Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
> > under WinXP (and Win2K).
> >
>
> I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
> spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
> Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
> >
> >
>
>
there's a national spelling test competition on TV too. Plus I used to
live on Demesne Road. Tsk. I hang my head in shame.
Ian Kenefick
wrote:
>That'll teach me to use fancy words. It's "demesne". And in a week when
>there's a national spelling test competition on TV too. Plus I used to
>live on Demesne Road. Tsk. I hang my head in shame.
Funny :))
lawmoweman
>> I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
>> spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
>> Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>That'll teach me to use fancy words. It's "demesne".
Probably not that fancy a word to many and i would think that you used it
because of the nuance of difference between demesne and domain.
Continue with celerity! :-)
lm