RE: BitDefender
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:45:00 AM
|
|
|
PcGamer
Posts: 1
Joined: 1.Mar.2005
Status: offline
|
I have just rebooted our server and everything seems back to normal. Emails are coming through again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:47:00 AM
|
|
|
carmined
Posts: 51
Joined: 3.Feb.2005
Status: offline
|
I totally second BOA's response and feelings.
Well said. I think I will also switch to manual but MSEC has been working for almost a year on auto update.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:51:00 AM
|
|
|
Bill Roland
Posts: 148
Joined: 19.Mar.2004
From: Ocala, FL
Status: offline
|
Making me seriously consider getting the Kaspersky engine turned on. I'm now down to just Norman.
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:53:00 AM
|
|
|
tstephenson
Posts: 71
Joined: 23.Nov.2004
Status: offline
|
if the problem is with the bitdefender definitions, surely some of the "blame" must lay with them?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:54:00 AM
|
|
|
cpi
Posts: 19
Joined: 31.Mar.2004
From: UK
Status: offline
|
Nothing is bug free, but a bug shouldn't be able to have an effect of this magnitude. With hindsight I suppose there should be some feature that disables a single engine if it runs riot and starts deleting every incoming and outgoing message. We are lucky with using the VS API module that we still have the header of the messages and know who they came from, but for those where the messages have been completely deleted, this could mean lost business.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:56:00 AM
|
|
|
carmined
Posts: 51
Joined: 3.Feb.2005
Status: offline
|
I keep saying that GFI's products work great but this is completely unacceptable. I have my CEO, boss and all other employees not cutting me any slack.
But I will provide them logfiles as long as this gets resolved too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:56:00 AM
|
|
|
sbonnell
Posts: 2
Joined: 1.Mar.2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
Same here 13:34 gmt received a Bitdefender update and immediately quarantined all emails with corrupt zip file. Have disabled Bitdefender. Please inform me how to resolve the problem.
Regards
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:56:00 AM
|
|
|
xlagerwaard
Posts: 10
Joined: 9.Jan.2005
Status: offline
|
What i don't get is how this kind of error can occur? Surely definition files are tested before they go live????
[ March 02, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Xander ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 10:56:00 AM
|
|
|
tstephenson
Posts: 71
Joined: 23.Nov.2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Roland:
Making me seriously consider getting the Kaspersky engine turned on. I'm now down to just Norman.
I think this is a good idea; I have the Kaspersky engine option as my primary engine as I trust it more than Norman or Bitdefender...
I suppose this is the danger when you have an AV engine updating every hour or so - no time for testing, which means occasionally bugs will slip through...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 11:03:00 AM
|
|
|
Sergio
Posts: 19
Joined: 24.May2004
From: Charlotte, NC - USA
Status: offline
|
Toby,
I am not sure we get "real time" updates. We use Norman on our networks and many times I will receive an alert from Norman that they have released a new definition to address a serious new virus and it will be many hours before GFI gets an update.
I always thought the delay was because GFI had to download the updates to their own server and test/convert before it was available for download.
If there is no testing going on them we should at least get quasi-real time updates.
Sergio
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 11:11:00 AM
|
|
|
tstephenson
Posts: 71
Joined: 23.Nov.2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sergio:
Toby,
I am not sure we get "real time" updates. We use Norman on our networks and many times I will receive an alert from Norman that they have released a new definition to address a serious new virus and it will be many hours before GFI gets an update.
I always thought the delay was because GFI had to download the updates to their own server and test/convert before it was available for download.
If there is no testing going on them we should at least get quasi-real time updates.
Sergio
Hi Sergio, this is interesting....anyone at GFI care to comment?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 11:13:00 AM
|
|
|
xlagerwaard
Posts: 10
Joined: 9.Jan.2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toby Stephenson:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergio:
Toby,
I am not sure we get "real time" updates. We use Norman on our networks and many times I will receive an alert from Norman that they have released a new definition to address a serious new virus and it will be many hours before GFI gets an update.
I always thought the delay was because GFI had to download the updates to their own server and test/convert before it was available for download.
If there is no testing going on them we should at least get quasi-real time updates.
Sergio
Hi Sergio, this is interesting....anyone at GFI care to comment?
I would like to see GFI comment on this as well.
[ March 02, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Xander ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: BitDefender - 2.Mar.2005 11:18:00 AM
|
|
|
wrburgess
Posts: 8
Joined: 1.Mar.2005
Status: offline
|
Bugs happen, but not to a software firm of GFI's(supposed) magnitude or to one, at least, that values keeping clients.
The lack of testing for most of their software is amazingly slack (this is hardly the first example) and will become an issue to address in further software purchases for my firm.
[ March 02, 2005, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Randal ]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Printable Version
![[Wink]](/image/smiles/wink.gif)
![[Smile]](/image/smiles/smile.gif)