Forum Discussion
I dont think its Bit Defender. The virus signatures match up with CLAM AV, which makes sense since there is no cost to it. All they have to do is develop against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus
Well if it IS ClamAV we would not be interested at all. Last time I checked ClamAV with places like AV-Test it had less than a 20% detection rate for windows. At that point why even bother since windows defender would be better. I know there are ways of improving on this by using third-party signatures but the nature of this means you have to be vigilant in maintaining these. Overall we'll just keep and re-sub Symantec AV.
- AshC6 years agoRetired GoTo Contributor
I can state publicly it's not CLAM. Other than that, I'm still waiting to hear about updates to the program and final release dates....
- keevin6 years agoNew Contributor
Yeah, I agree its not CLAM, I wasnt able to replicate my initial research that pointed in that direction. We have deployed on a couple of test machines. Seems like the product is a decent beta, but not yet ready for Prime Time. We havent been able to get the anti-phishing module to work on any test machines and LMI support hasnt been able to get it working either.
- RDiaz6 years agoNew Contributor
That's good news (pending confirmation). But unfortunately for us, we can't wait for this to be ready. Especially with California's new SIMM 5355 mandate, we would need a more robust solution than just endpoint AV.
- RDiaz6 years agoNew Contributor
AshC,
Not doubting you but can you expand on why you believe it's not CLAM?