E-trust Innov Ver 6 1

[GarethT]

OK bit of a ranomd question however....

In your Realtime options under Sleections youc an choose which scanning engine to use-- either Inculanit or Vet engine.
so...
My customer has a 56k modem internet connection (dont ask...)
it basically downloads the innoculan updates but times out on the Vet engines.
Do i actually need the VET engines or can i ust elave it downloading the innoculan engines?



MCSE NT&2K,CCNA/CCDA,CNA,ASE,NSP

 

[JimInKS]

You shouldn't need the vet signatures if you just use the InoculateIT engine.

I would be a liitle worried that someone might get the vet engine selected for scanning and end up using outdated signature files. Not sure if eTrust will give you a warning if the signature files are old or not.

I have always wondered which engine is "better", vet or InoculateIT? I have always just used InoculateIT.

 

[JettaWarrior]

You might want to think of using both - this from CA:


": Delivering eTrust InoculateIT/Antivirus with 2 engines is based on the observation that many companies do not rely on one vendor only for their virus protection. A typical setup is to run vendor A on the servers/gateways and vendor B on the clients. This way there is a second chance to detect a virus on the workstation if it slipped through the server protection. Using the same vendor on servers and workstations will let a virus straight through if the product doesn't have detection. While most anti virus scanners are pretty much equal when it comes to detecting in the wild viruses, there might be differences when it comes to zoo viruses and especially new, yet unknown viruses detected by heuristics.

The downside of using 2 different products is that administrators have to learn 2 different products, use 2 different applications to manage the deployed antivirus products, possibly implement 2 different signature update schemes, etc.

eTrust InoculateIT/Antivirus gives enterprise clients the benefit of running 2 different anti virus technologies within their organization while eliminating the need to learn two different products. All the management is done through one comprehensive user interface regardless of the engine installed.

While, of course, exchanging viruses, the 2 antivirus teams work largely independently, so that the 2 engines can be considered completely different. Detection/cure for known viruses is about the same, but the heuristic modules looking for unknown viruses are very different."

We use VET on realtime - Inoculateit on everyday scans. Just one way of doing things.

 

[JimInKS]

JettaWarrior,
Thanks for the info. What I had assumed, but never saw in writing.

Any info on the realtime performance of VET vs. InoculateIT?

 

[JettaWarrior]

JimInKS, you are most welcome. You paid for both, might as well use them both. I looked around and couldn't find any realtime performance data to cite, but I remember reading somewhere that VET was better on the realtime side. I think there were also some issues early on with VET unable to do the boot sector scan, so if you do both, then that sort of forces you to you InoculateIT for the regular scans. I wish I could find that info, maybe someone else knows where it is and will chime in.

 

[glacierxx]

One item that is left out quite often is that the Vet engine is not compatible with W2K.

"evil prospers when good men do nothing”

 

[JettaWarrior]

glacierxx,
Do you have a reference for that? We've been using VET on a W2K machines for nearly 2 years without any problems.