Indeed, I agree. While I haven't had any of my customers use it thus far (we usually recommend Symantec) I can see how it would be popular. I guess the crossroads I am at right now is first I want to make sure they are protected. Second, I want to know for how long. Third, I want to know the specifics because this particular customer happens to be an attorney and I can imagine that, assuming CA was telling me the truth, the licensing doesn't expire for 25 or 30 years he'll be royally pissed off that his previous IT people sold him this solution, then continued to bill him yearly for license renewal fees.
I would just like my ducks in a row. :-)
Main Topics
Browse All Topics





by: jdustinbPosted on 2008-09-04 at 16:09:45ID: 22393755
Not sure if I can provide too much info as I'm not familiar with CA licensing, but looking at the 7.1 CA eTrust Antivirus installation on my system shows the same VET build dates for the signature files. I'm guessing so long as the .dat files are updated, this is okay, as this is what contains the virus definitions.
In terms of the 7.1 version of eTrust Antivirus, this is considered an enterprise solution comparable to yet much cheaper than McAfee or Norton's offerings. Many large corporations use it.