Web Development Live

Symantec has opened up a beta program for Norton Safe Web that puts the company on course to challenge a similar offering from security rival McAfee.

According to Symantec, Norton Safe Web is available starting today, July 28, as a plug-in for the beta version of NIS 2009. Safe Web functions as a Web site rating service, providing visual safety ratings of search results from engines such as Google and Yahoo by assessing Web security and leveraging information from members of Norton Community Watch.

For example, if a site that has traditionally been considered safe is suddenly flagged as suspicious, Symantec will go back and reanalyze that quickly, Rosenkrantz said. On the other hand, if it is a known bad site, the priority of going back and reanalyzing it is low, he added.

While Symantec is entering the secure searching fray with Norton Safe Web, its main security rival has already started down this trail. McAfee offers similar capabilities in its SiteAdvisor product, and recently teamed with Yahoo to extend its capabilities to help make Web searching more secure. Google has also made some strides on this front of late, with the development of a Safe Browsing Diagnostic Page for Web masters interested in additional information on sites Google determines are malicious.

Like SiteAdvisor, Safe Web uses the colors green, yellow and red in its site ratings. Safe Web also marks both organic and paid links on search pages and warns users if they attempt to visit rogue sites.

Symantec officials also disclosed other plans they said they felt would take Safe Web a step beyond rival products, but declined to discuss them publicly. In addition to the beta, Symantec has created a free community site where anyone can look up the safety rating of a site and submit Web site reviews.

Domains in Hong Kong, China and the Philippines have been named as the most potentially dangerous on the web.

A recent report by security firm McAfee found that the three nations had the highest percentage of malicious sites within their domain suffixes.

Researchers estimated that roughly 19 per cent of all sites ending with the .hk suffix posed some sort of security threat. Second place was China’s .cn with 11 per cent posing a security risk.

“Just like the real world, the virtual threats and risks are constantly changing,” said Jeff Green, senior vice president of product development at McAfee.

“As our research shows, sites that are safe today can be dangerous tomorrow. Surfing the web based on conventional wisdom is not enough to avoid risks.”

The .com domain, the most popular on the internet, was ninth riskiest overall, while .gov was the safest among the generic domains.

Finland’s .fi was ranked as the safest on the internet, with .05 per cent of sites posing a possible threat. Japan’s .jp and Norway’s .no rounded out the list of the three safest domains.

YOU’VE probably heard of the term Web 2.0. It was invented by
computer book publisher Tim O’Reilly and refers to the increasingly
large number of internet applications that are collaborative and
interactive.
There are many examples - Wikipedia, Second Life, social
networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, photo sharing site
Flickr and a host of others. These have emerged just in the last
few years and have already changed the way many of us use the
internet.
Indeed, they have changed the way many of us live. This tends to
be especially true of younger people, to whom cyberspace is almost
as big a part of life as the “real” world.
Until now, Web 2.0 applications have mostly affected
individuals. Companies and government organisations have largely
retained more traditional methods of communication. The primary
collaborative technology for most organisations in the modern world
has become email, which is very much a Web 1.0, or first
generation, internet application.
That is now changing. Web 2.0 applications are increasingly
finding their way into the enterprise. This phenomenon has,
inevitably, been dubbed Enterprise 2.0. That term was invented last
year by Harvard Business School professor Andrew McAfee, who has
emerged as something of an international authority on the subject.
Last week I heard a remarkable presentation by Professor McAfee on
the state of play with Enterprise 2.0 worldwide. His talk was
beamed in via Skype from Orlando, Florida, where he was attending
an enterprise search conference. He spoke to 200 of us assembled in
a conference room in Sydney’s Luna Park to discuss Enterprise 2.0
in Australia.
First, Professor McAfee defined the subject. Fair enough. He
invented the term, after all. “Enterprise 2.0 is the use of
emergent social software platforms within companies, or between
companies and their partners or customers.”
Those “emergent social software platforms” are the Web 2.0
applications we looked at above. Professor McAfee refers to these
as “free and easy” applications, in contrast to something like
email which he describes as “a channel which closes down after each
message”.
Another key point about these “emergent applications” is that
the important thing is how the software is used, not about how it
is delivered, or how it is developed, or how it is integrated. The
key to Enterprise 2.0 is usage - getting more people in the
organisation using software applications that enable them to share
ideas and information.
The event I attended where we heard Professor McAfee’s words of
wisdom was the grandly named “Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum”, run
by Sydney company Future Enterprise Network (FEN). FEN
(futureexploration.net) is run by Ross Dawson, who has become one
of Australia’s leading internet gurus in recent years. He also runs
regular events on the future of media.
We also heard, via the wonders of a Skype videolink, from Euan
Semple, formerly head of knowledge management at the BBC. Mr Semple
reported to us from his sister’s kitchen in Munich, where he was
working as part of his new career as an adviser to European
companies on Enterprise 2.0 issues.
We also heard, from real live individuals within the room, about
a number of Australian companies and their use of Enterprise 2.0
technologies. Westpac is using Second Life for staff training.
Bionic ear company Cochlear uses a wiki for software development.
Pharmaceutical company Janssen-Cilag has developed a blog-like
corporate internet for internal communications. Clearly, Enterprise
2.0 is here.
But there is reluctance to embrace the technology in many
quarters. Mr Semple told of some of the problems he had introducing
the technology at the BBC. “There are significant cultural hurdles.
Many senior managers are not comfortable with the tools. I often
found it was easier to go around barriers rather than confront
them. It is easier to apologise afterwards than to ask permission
up-front.”
He spoke about one manager who could not initially believe that
staff could be trusted with social networking tools in a work
environment. He was worried that they would waste time, or that
material in blogs could be read by people outside the organisation
and give away corporate secrets.
These sorts of issues, as many speakers discussed, are common
barriers to the introduction of Enterprise 2.0 technologies in many
organisations. But the common theme was how these barriers can be
overcome and the many benefits that the technology can bring to the
organisation.
“It’s cheap, it’s easy and it conforms to the way knowledge
workers work,” Professor McAfee says.
“Among strongly tied co-workers, a wiki can function as a kind
of online whiteboard. Among those with looser affiliations, social
networking tools are very important, and can serve as bridges to
other networks, just as they do in the personal sphere.
“And blogs are great ways of coming across serendipitous
information, helping innovation and fostering new ideas.”
We’ve been hearing for years that companies need to be smarter
and more responsive and that they need to find new ways to tap into
employees’ capabilities. Enterprise 2.0 tools would seem to offer
just those capabilities. This may scare some people of my
generation but with the Gen X and Gen Y types coming through, they
will have no choice.
graeme@philipson.info

YOU’VE probably heard of the term Web 2.0. It was invented by
computer book publisher Tim O’Reilly and refers to the increasingly
large number of internet applications that are collaborative and
interactive.
There are many examples - Wikipedia, Second Life, social
networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, photo sharing site
Flickr and a host of others. These have emerged just in the last
few years and have already changed the way many of us use the
internet.
Indeed, they have changed the way many of us live. This tends to
be especially true of younger people, to whom cyberspace is almost
as big a part of life as the “real” world.
Until now, Web 2.0 applications have mostly affected
individuals. Companies and government organisations have largely
retained more traditional methods of communication. The primary
collaborative technology for most organisations in the modern world
has become email, which is very much a Web 1.0, or first
generation, internet application.
That is now changing. Web 2.0 applications are increasingly
finding their way into the enterprise. This phenomenon has,
inevitably, been dubbed Enterprise 2.0. That term was invented last
year by Harvard Business School professor Andrew McAfee, who has
emerged as something of an international authority on the subject.
Last week I heard a remarkable presentation by Professor McAfee on
the state of play with Enterprise 2.0 worldwide. His talk was
beamed in via Skype from Orlando, Florida, where he was attending
an enterprise search conference. He spoke to 200 of us assembled in
a conference room in Sydney’s Luna Park to discuss Enterprise 2.0
in Australia.
First, Professor McAfee defined the subject. Fair enough. He
invented the term, after all. “Enterprise 2.0 is the use of
emergent social software platforms within companies, or between
companies and their partners or customers.”
Those “emergent social software platforms” are the Web 2.0
applications we looked at above. Professor McAfee refers to these
as “free and easy” applications, in contrast to something like
email which he describes as “a channel which closes down after each
message”.
Another key point about these “emergent applications” is that
the important thing is how the software is used, not about how it
is delivered, or how it is developed, or how it is integrated. The
key to Enterprise 2.0 is usage - getting more people in the
organisation using software applications that enable them to share
ideas and information.
The event I attended where we heard Professor McAfee’s words of
wisdom was the grandly named “Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum”, run
by Sydney company Future Enterprise Network (FEN). FEN
(futureexploration.net) is run by Ross Dawson, who has become one
of Australia’s leading internet gurus in recent years. He also runs
regular events on the future of media.
We also heard, via the wonders of a Skype videolink, from Euan
Semple, formerly head of knowledge management at the BBC. Mr Semple
reported to us from his sister’s kitchen in Munich, where he was
working as part of his new career as an adviser to European
companies on Enterprise 2.0 issues.
We also heard, from real live individuals within the room, about
a number of Australian companies and their use of Enterprise 2.0
technologies. Westpac is using Second Life for staff training.
Bionic ear company Cochlear uses a wiki for software development.
Pharmaceutical company Janssen-Cilag has developed a blog-like
corporate internet for internal communications. Clearly, Enterprise
2.0 is here.
But there is reluctance to embrace the technology in many
quarters. Mr Semple told of some of the problems he had introducing
the technology at the BBC. “There are significant cultural hurdles.
Many senior managers are not comfortable with the tools. I often
found it was easier to go around barriers rather than confront
them. It is easier to apologise afterwards than to ask permission
up-front.”
He spoke about one manager who could not initially believe that
staff could be trusted with social networking tools in a work
environment. He was worried that they would waste time, or that
material in blogs could be read by people outside the organisation
and give away corporate secrets.
These sorts of issues, as many speakers discussed, are common
barriers to the introduction of Enterprise 2.0 technologies in many
organisations. But the common theme was how these barriers can be
overcome and the many benefits that the technology can bring to the
organisation.
“It’s cheap, it’s easy and it conforms to the way knowledge
workers work,” Professor McAfee says.
“Among strongly tied co-workers, a wiki can function as a kind
of online whiteboard. Among those with looser affiliations, social
networking tools are very important, and can serve as bridges to
other networks, just as they do in the personal sphere.
“And blogs are great ways of coming across serendipitous
information, helping innovation and fostering new ideas.”
We’ve been hearing for years that companies need to be smarter
and more responsive and that they need to find new ways to tap into
employees’ capabilities. Enterprise 2.0 tools would seem to offer
just those capabilities. This may scare some people of my
generation but with the Gen X and Gen Y types coming through, they
will have no choice.
graeme@philipson.info

Inevitably, with the explosion of malicious code that can damage our data and ruin our day, the software grew along with it and most titles now are bloated behemoths that sap the very life force from our machines.
Like many advanced users, I make do without AV software, though I take various other precautions to avoid infection, and, so far, (touch wood), Ive never had a virus I didnt knowingly import.
While I like the idea of real-time virus protection most AV software offers, (where files are scanned every time we use them), I dont like the performance hit that goes with it. Much of todays AV software is just too clumsy and inefficient to be useful.
Developers forget that ordinary users have ordinary machines, not like the quad-core monsters they design their software on.
If your machine is powerful enough, you might not notice the extra baggage.
Its a bit like encasing your car in a solid block of concrete, leaving only a hole to climb in and a slit to see out of.
Sure, its the safest car on the planet but it just doesnt work that well.
So, ideally we want an anti-virus package that protects our machines without turning them into sloths.
When we mention anti-virus software, we dont usually think Eastern Europe; most of us think Norton or McAfee. The truth is that much of the current AV software hails from what was once %26lsquo;behind the iron curtain.
AVG and Avast are from the Czech Republic, Kaspersky is from Russia, Nod32 from Slovakia and my subject for today, Bitdefender, is from Romania.
Bitdefender AntiVirus 2008 is priced at $49 and the box states it %26ldquo;Protects up to 3 PCs%26rdquo;. There is a fully-functional demo version available to download from their site so you can try before you buy, and if you like it you can purchase online via their site or grab a boxed version at your usual software outlet.
My test rig is an average machine by todays standards and I am running Vista Business edition. To keep things scientific, I wore a white coat for all the tests.
Now, I could bore you to tears with facts and figures, and believe me, I will, but to me they matter less than the overall %26lsquo;feel of my computer after installing the software. Does it feel slower? Is there lots of hard drive thrashing or is it me thrashing the hard drive yelling %26ldquo;come on you b%26amp;^%$!!?%26rdquo; I have decided to ask and answer three questions; is it good value? Would I use it and would I recommend it to you, my loyal readers? Lets find out.
Installation was easy; insert the disk, follow the prompts. A nice touch was the setup file looking online for a newer version and offering to download it, which I accepted. After a few minutes the install carried on. The next step is updating the software with the latest data. This was a surprisingly large download (9mb) considering I had already downloaded the latest installation file during the setup. No problem though.
Once installation is completed, a reboot is required. After restart, as Vista booted, I got a Bitdefender service crash dialogue, which asked me if I wanted to send an error report. I did; if it helps them make a better product then Im happy to help. The service that crashed was automatically restarted and I had no further issues during the time the software was installed. Not an auspicious start though.
Bitdefender also loaded a floating graph thingy above the system clock. This semi-transparent widget can be set anywhere on-screen and sits in front of other windows displaying current file scanning activity. Cute, and a novelty, but this is the kind of useless, resource-hogging %26lsquo;feature that just isnt needed. It is more %26lsquo;bling than a useful tool. If you like it, fine, if not, at least it can be turned off in the programme options.
Using a process viewer, I could see four Bitdefender processes running and was pleasantly surprised at how few resources these core services use. More importantly, my machine doesnt feel slower, except when opening start menu items where I now notice a slight delay before the menu populates, but I could live with this. Opening other programs takes no longer than usual. As I write this I am scanning my %26lsquo;D drive in the background. I would expect my machine to slug down with a scan in progress but in this case I dont even notice it. Excellent.
This is where I got confused (not an uncommon occurrence, I assure you). My %26lsquo;Identity Control requires attention. I fossicked around for the manual that came with the software %26ndash; nothing about it in there. I hit the Bitdefender website, no further explanation there either. What does it do? I still dont know. Clicking the big red %26lsquo;Fix This Issue button opens a dialogue requiring me to enter personal information like credit card data and so-on; whether this is some kind of filter or core-level protection Im not sure, but after 10 minutes of trying to find out about it I gave up; it shouldnt be that hard. I felt perhaps there could be some example data in there to illustrate what is required.
The settings dialogues are all clear and easy to understand; out-of-the-box Bitdefender is ready to protect you with minimal input. That said, when I looked around trying to find a way to do a full scan on selected areas %26ndash; a handy feature if you want to scan a particular drive or a few folders %26ndash; I couldnt find anything, though there is a %26lsquo;right-click context menu that allows you to scan a drive or folder, so maybe they just rely on this feature for that particular task.
Email protection, one of the most important parts of any AV software, was automatically configured and required zero input from me. I use Operas M2 for email, a relatively unusual mail client, and I sometimes see issues with other AV software. Not Bitdefender; checking for mail was seamless and there was no delay %26lsquo;waiting for the scanner to %26lsquo;kick in. A simple dialog shows both incoming and outgoing mail being scanned in real time
I used a test virus to put Bitdefender through its paces; it isnt actually a virus but is good fun to play with. Trying to open it or even download it from the web was impossible %26ndash; Bitdefender wouldnt allow me to have any kind of access to it at all; very good.
Bitdefender also has an option (called %26lsquo;Aggressive) to monitor traffic when web surfing. I turned this on and went looking for trouble. I found it on East 51st street, and her name was, oh, wait, sorry, thats my novel. No, I went to a known site that prompts people to download %26lsquo;funnies, which of course contain a virus. While I could surf the page, trying to download the %26lsquo;funny was impossible. Excellent.
To be honest, I wanted to dislike this product. I thought it would be just another fat and lethargic scanner; another worthless title the unsuspecting public would be sucked into buying by clever misinformation marketing and paranoia mongering.
But it isnt. I like it. It is surprisingly lightweight and very easy to use. All the bases are covered, and thats important; the software does exactly what it promises to do.
I know there are free AV titles out there, including one from Bitdefender, so why should we buy one? Most free software is feature limited, though not crippled, and I still recommend it, but if you are one of those people who cant equate %26lsquo;free with %26lsquo;good, and you simply have to buy something, you couldnt do much better than Bitdefender Antivirus 2008 for features and value for money.
I rate it 8 out of 10, and if you know me, you would know that this isnt hollow praise (and no, I dont get free software or trips to the Riviera for saying so %26ndash; hint hint, Bitdefender).
So is it good value? Yes it is. Would I use it? Yes I would. Would I recommend it to you? Yes, if you must buy AV software, this would be a good one to go for.
Oh, I promised you some figures. My 500GB secondary drive has 465GB of data on it, which is made up of 284,473 files in 37,016 folders.
This includes 74,628 compressed archives (zip files) which are historically difficult for AV scanners to negotiate. A complete scan on this drive took 5 hours, 11 minutes. Bitdefender found several hundred suspicious items, (figure 7) which means Im going to be stuck here for hours sorting this out. Darnit! Now I remember why I dont use AV software…

About 120 countries are developing ways to use the internet as a weapon to target financial markets, government computer systems and utilities, Internet security company McAfee said in an annual report.
Intelligence agencies already routinely test other states networks looking for weaknesses and their techniques are growing more sophisticated every year, it said.
Governments must urgently shore up their defences against industrial espionage and attacks on infrastructure.
Cybercrime is now a global issue, said Jeff Green, senior vice-president of McAfee Avert Labs. It has evolved significantly and is no longer just a threat to industry and individuals but increasingly to national security.
The report said China is at the forefront of the cyber war. It said China has been blamed for attacks in the United States, India and Germany. China has repeatedly denied such claims.
The Chinese were first to use cyber-attacks for political and military goals, James Mulvenon, director of the Centre for Intelligence and Research in Washington, was quoted as saying in the report.
The report was compiled with input from academics and officials from Britains Serious Organised Crime Agency, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Nato.
Cyber-attacks on private and government Web sites in Estonia in April and May this year were just the tip of the iceberg, the report warned.
Estonia said thousands of sites were affected in attacks aimed at crippling infrastructure in a country heavily dependent on the Internet.
The attacks appeared to have stemmed initially from Russia although the Kremlin denied any wrongdoing.
The complexity and co-ordination seen was new, the report quoted an unnamed Nato source as saying. There were a series of attacks with careful timing using different techniques and specific targets.
EU Information Society commissioner Viviane Reding said in June that what happened in Estonia was a wake-up call. Nato said urgent work was needed to improve defences.
The McAfee report predicted that future attacks would be even more sophisticated.
Attacks have progressed from initial curiosity probes to well-funded and well-organised operations for political, military, economic and technical espionage, it said.

Back in the days when we only had a few viruses to worry about, AV software was so small and lightweight we barely noticed it running. Inevitably, with the explosion of malicious code that can damage our data and ruin our day, the software grew along with it and most titles now are bloated behemoths that sap the very life force from our machines. Like many `advanced? users, I make do without AV software, though I take various other precautions to avoid infection, and, so far, (touch wood), I?ve never had a virus I didn?t knowingly import. While I like the idea of real-time virus protection most AV software offers, (where files are scanned every time we use them), I don?t like the performance hit that goes with it. Much of today?s AV software is just too clumsy and inefficient to be useful. Developers forget that `ordinary? users have `ordinary? machines, not like the quad-core monsters they design their software on. If your machine is powerful enough, you might not notice the extra baggage. It?s a bit like encasing your car in a solid block of concrete, leaving only a hole to climb in and a slit to see out of. Sure, it?s the safest car on the planet but it just doesn?t work that well. So, ideally we want an anti-virus package that protects our machines without turning them into sloths.
When we mention anti-virus software, we dont usually think Eastern Europe; most of us think Norton or McAfee. The truth is that much of the current AV software hails from what was once %26lsquo;behind the iron curtain. AVG and Avast are from the Czech Republic, Kaspersky is from Russia, Nod32 from Slovakia and my subject for today, Bitdefender, is from Romania.
Bitdefender AntiVirus 2008 is priced at $49 and the box states it %26ldquo;Protects up to 3 PCs%26rdquo;. There is a fully-functional demo version available to download from their site so you can try before you buy, and if you like it you can purchase online via their site or grab a boxed version at your usual software outlet.
My test rig is an average machine by todays standards and I am running Vista Business edition. To keep things scientific, I wore a white coat for all the tests.
Now, I could bore you to tears with facts and figures, and believe me, I will, but to me they matter less than the overall %26lsquo;feel of my computer after installing the software. Does it feel slower? Is there lots of hard drive thrashing or is it me thrashing the hard drive yelling %26ldquo;come on you b%26amp;^%$!!?%26rdquo; I have decided to ask and answer three questions; is it good value? Would I use it and would I recommend it to you, my loyal readers? Lets find out.

Installation was easy; insert the disk, follow the prompts. A nice touch was the setup file looking online for a newer version and offering to download it, which I accepted. After a few minutes the install carried on. The next step is updating the software with the latest data. This was a surprisingly large download (9mb) considering I had already downloaded the latest installation file during the setup. No problem though.

Once installation is completed, a reboot is required. After restart, as Vista booted, I got a Bitdefender service crash dialogue, which asked me if I wanted to send an error report. I did; if it helps them make a better product then Im happy to help. The service that crashed was automatically restarted and I had no further issues during the time the software was installed. Not an auspicious start though.
Bitdefender also loaded a floating graph thingy above the system clock. This semi-transparent widget can be set anywhere on-screen and sits in front of other windows displaying current file scanning activity. Cute, and a novelty, but this is the kind of useless, resource-hogging %26lsquo;feature that just isnt needed. It is more %26lsquo;bling than a useful tool. If you like it, fine, if not, at least it can be turned off in the programme options.

Using a process viewer, I could see four Bitdefender processes running and was pleasantly surprised at how few resources these core services use. More importantly, my machine doesnt feel slower, except when opening start menu items where I now notice a slight delay before the menu populates, but I could live with this. Opening other programs takes no longer than usual. As I write this I am scanning my %26lsquo;D drive in the background. I would expect my machine to slug down with a scan in progress but in this case I dont even notice it. Excellent.

This is where I got confused (not an uncommon occurrence, I assure you). My %26lsquo;Identity Control requires attention. I fossicked around for the manual that came with the software %26ndash; nothing about it in there. I hit the Bitdefender website, no further explanation there either. What does it do? I still dont know. Clicking the big red %26lsquo;Fix This Issue button opens a dialogue requiring me to enter personal information like credit card data and so-on; whether this is some kind of filter or core-level protection Im not sure, but after 10 minutes of trying to find out about it I gave up; it shouldnt be that hard. I felt perhaps there could be some example data in there to illustrate what is required.

The settings dialogues are all clear and easy to understand; out-of-the-box Bitdefender is ready to protect you with minimal input. That said, when I looked around trying to find a way to do a full scan on selected areas %26ndash; a handy feature if you want to scan a particular drive or a few folders %26ndash; I couldnt find anything, though there is a %26lsquo;right-click context menu that allows you to scan a drive or folder, so maybe they just rely on this feature for that particular task.

Email protection, one of the most important parts of any AV software, was automatically configured and required zero input from me. I use Operas M2 for email, a relatively unusual mail client, and I sometimes see issues with other AV software. Not Bitdefender; checking for mail was seamless and there was no delay %26lsquo;waiting for the scanner to %26lsquo;kick in. A simple dialog shows both incoming and outgoing mail being scanned in real time

I used a test virus to put Bitdefender through its paces; it isnt actually a virus but is good fun to play with. Trying to open it or even download it from the web was impossible %26ndash; Bitdefender wouldnt allow me to have any kind of access to it at all; very good.

Bitdefender also has an option (called %26lsquo;Aggressive) to monitor traffic when web surfing. I turned this on and went looking for trouble. I found it on East 51st street, and her name was, oh, wait, sorry, thats my novel. No, I went to a known site that prompts people to download %26lsquo;funnies, which of course contain a virus. While I could surf the page, trying to download the %26lsquo;funny was impossible. Excellent.

To be honest, I wanted to dislike this product. I thought it would be just another fat and lethargic scanner; another worthless title the unsuspecting public would be sucked into buying by clever misinformation marketing and paranoia mongering. But it isnt. I like it. It is surprisingly lightweight and very easy to use. All the bases are covered, and thats important; the software does exactly what it promises to do. I know there are free AV titles out there, including one from Bitdefender, so why should we buy one? Most free software is feature limited, though not crippled, and I still recommend it, but if you are one of those people who cant equate %26lsquo;free with %26lsquo;good, and you simply %26lsquo;have to buy something, you couldnt do much better than Bitdefender Antivirus 2008 for features and value for money.
I rate it 8 out of 10, and if you know me, you would know that this isnt hollow praise (and no, I dont get free software or trips to the Riviera for saying so %26ndash; hint hint, Bitdefender).
So is it good value? Yes it is. Would I use it? Yes I would. Would I recommend it to you? Yes, if you must buy AV software, this would be a good one to go for.
Oh, I promised you some figures. My 500GB secondary drive has 465GB of data on it, which is made up of 284,473 files in 37,016 folders. This includes 74,628 compressed archives (zip files) which are historically difficult for AV scanners to negotiate. A complete scan on this drive took 5 hours, 11 minutes. Bitdefender found several hundred suspicious items, (figure 7) which means Im going to be stuck here for hours sorting this out. Darnit! Now I remember why I dont use AV software…