Comments on: Microsoft OneCare fails second virus test – What does this mean for Forefront Client Security?

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:54:51 +0000

Doesn’t this only apply for Forefront Security for Exchange? Are you sure that you can run more multiple AV engines with Forefront Client Security, too?

By: Hugo Malavet

Hugo Malavet — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:43:58 +0000

This doesn’t mean anything to Forefront since the key benefit of Forefront is that it uses up to five anti-virus engines in parallel. Microsoft’s own AV engine may stink, but no AV engine is perfect or has signatures updated as fast as others. It is quite clever actually that Forefront is not dependent on Microsoft’s AV prowess, or any one AV engine. Having said all that, this is a marketing problem, but not a product or technical problem for Forefront.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:53:59 +0000

You’re right; all Microsoft products are unbelievably cheap for educational institutions. We all know why MS is doing this. We are thankful anyway. Thanks a lot for the link! I am shocked about the bad performance of Sophos. It made me think again, if I should have a look at Forefront now. The products with a better detection rate are probably too expensive for us.

By: BN

BN — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:10:01 +0000

I am an I.T. director at a college, and we too have been considering moving from Sophos to Forefront. Microsoft is almost giving this away to colleges. I agree with your conclusion here, but it’s worth noting that Sophos didn’t fare much better than Microsoft in a recent test from AV Test http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2135092,00.asp