AntiVirus Detection in XP SP2


Recommended Posts

Wouldn't all the AV software be detected? If changes are not yet done by the time SP2 is released, it probably be added later. MS definitely not going to wanna get sued for monopoly of the AV section.

Firewall software should be the same. Although in the absense of any firewall installed, Windows Firewall will be the main default selected.

Windows XP SP2 RC2:

Antivirus Software Detected Properly:

Grisoft AVG Pro 7.251 Yes

Kaspersky Anti-Virus 5.0.121 Yes

McAfee VirusScan Yes

Panda Software Platinum 7.0 Yes

Panda Software Titanium Antivirus 2004 3.01.00 No

Symantec Norton AntiVirus 2004 No

Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet Security Yes

Zone Labs ZoneAlarm Security Suite 5.0 No

Firewall Software Detected Properly:

Agnitum Outpost 2.1 No

McAfee Personal Firewall Plus Yes

Panda Software Platinum 7.0 Pavfires Yes

Sygate Personal Firewall 5.5 No

Symantec Norton Personal Firewall 2004 No

Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet Security 11.31 Yes

Zone Labs ZoneAlarm 4.5 and 5.0 (free edition) No

Zone Labs ZoneAlarm Security Suite 5.0

And ZoneAlarm 4.5 Pro No

Master Spy.

F-Prot for Windows 3.15

The new F-Prot Antivirus Update Monitor will also communicate with the new Security Center in Windows XP SP2, to be released later this summer, to help you manage the security of your computer and monitor the status of security updates.

http://www.f-prot.com/news/gen_news/040630...ase_win315.html

Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition v9.0 surely is not detected (yet?)..... that's all I can confirm.

If your using Corp you should be on a domain and Windows Security Center will recognize this. :ninja:

If you're still getting alerts about Symantec Corp. talk to your admin.

Also on a fresh install of RC2 b.2149 at home...

...NAV 2004 was detected for me although it wasn't in some of the earlier builds I tried.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The problem of course is simply that government does not always know best. My point is that agency is taken away from the EU consumer in these cases. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that governments (politicians) are inherently good, and "looking out for me." Primarily they look to themselves and their own personal desires first, foremost, and always. When the EU or the DOJ fines these companies, claiming to "represent the welfare of the consumer," how much of these billion-dollar judgments are handed to the consumers they claim to represent? Not even a dollar, as I've seen. Yet the EUC lawyers who are paid to sit around and dream up these suits make huge commissions on the fines the EUC adjudicates, which is an ironclad fact I hope everyone is aware of. It's also rank corruption, of course, but that's another topic. Last, when the EU inflicts these judgments, or the DOJ, take your pick, the costs are bundled right along in the cost of the goods and services these companies provide the consumers they are "looking out for." If you are someone who believes his government is his savior then you have my condolences. I think Apple is right here, because the whole scheme of consumer choice is that consumers pick and choose among the products companies offer. Microsoft Windows is more compatible with third party software and hardware than any desktop OS on Earth, which is my sole reason for choosing it. Just because the EUC forces companies do certain things it knows the companies do not want to do, "or else", has no bearing on consumer benefit. This Siri thing is almost idiotic it's so infantile. But this is what the EUC does when the EU in Brussels becomes cash-strapped and needs a big infusion of cash. Some people get upset by "big companies" but it's the opposite when governments dwarf the size and scope of these companies, which is so obvious it hurts.... I mean you can't honestly believe that forcing Apple to do things with Siri it has its own reasons to decline is something that "opens up" Apple, do you? Say it aint' so...
    • Looks like many years since the request was made, a directory tree view finally may be added. https://github.com/files-community/Files/pull/18537
    • There's this from last year https://gist.github.com/threat...364659a8887841aa43deca4efd9 but nothing about a buffer overflow that MS somehow can't code against. No matter what, it makes sense to take a "protected by default" approach.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      DragonOfMercy earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      bella52 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      Techinmay earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      212
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!