Why one virus engine is not enough
Multiple virus engines are needed to reduce time lag between virus outbreak and signature update - by GFI Software
View full article »
Esther Schindler
If the comments are ugly, the code is ugly
claird
SVG a graphics format for 21st century
pasmith
Take Chrome OS for a test spin
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Solaris Tip: Have Your Files Changed Since Installation?
jfruh
Android fragments vs. the iPhone monolith
mikelgan
What Gizmodo missed about the Pro WX Wireless USB disk drive
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Multiple Scan Engines
This article brings to mind Microsoft's Forefront product. The New Jersey company they acquired to add to their security product permitted you to run multiple scan engines to protect the exchange server.A number of security appliances have multiple scan engines. Several years ago, Trend Micro had the "named" scan engine in a 3rd party appliance and Kaspersky's scan engine was so far under the head that it did not appear on data sheets.
An issue not really addressed in the article - do you run the engines in parallel? Does everything get tested by both? Is the testing random between the two (or more engines) with an equal or unequal weighting? Microsoft's acquisition (I haven't looked what Microsoft does with respect to this) permitted you to tweak the percentages.
And of course - what is the effect of multiple scan engines on performance?