Is there any AV sw which can auto-update on a limited account?

[nut]

Hi all

We're doing the right thing by having all our clients logged in as limited
users... but NAV2003 doesn't allow live updates unless you're logged in as
admin... which is never.

Having a look through Symantecs webby, they advise the use of their
corporate edition. I then evaluated the corporate standalone client but
that didn't work either... when logged in as a limited user, you can't do
updates... or it's ghosted out... it may be updating in the background but i
don't want to run unlicenced software on our machines for a couple of weeks
to see.

I'm sure it'd work fine with the corporate server/manager deploying the
updates, but we don't really want to do down that route... solely for
economic reasons.

Now, i know this is a feature, not a bug, but is there any intelligent AV
software which is both robust & reliable and capable of overriding account
limitations, enabling automatic updates while logged in as a limited user?

Many thanks in advance for any advice

 

[Guest]

Shouldn't "auto-update" have absolutely nothing to do with who is logged in
(or not)? Every AV software that I have used that has some auto-update
function does it even if _nobody_ is logged in. NAV corporate does - so does
F-Secure. Mcafee and Kapersky did (haven't used these for years, though). I
don't know about the non-corporate version of NAV, but I can't see why it
shouldn't be able to update without someone being logged in.

Sorry - just reread original message: it says "live update", not "auto
update". I guess that maybe that means someone "live" has to do the updating?
Maybe that's one reason why the corporate version costs more (or does it, and
by how much?)

|Hi all
|
|We're doing the right thing by having all our clients logged in as limited
|users... but NAV2003 doesn't allow live updates unless you're logged in as
|admin... which is never.
|
|Having a look through Symantecs webby, they advise the use of their
|corporate edition. I then evaluated the corporate standalone client but
|that didn't work either... when logged in as a limited user, you can't do
|updates... or it's ghosted out... it may be updating in the background but i
|don't want to run unlicenced software on our machines for a couple of weeks
|to see.
|
|I'm sure it'd work fine with the corporate server/manager deploying the
|updates, but we don't really want to do down that route... solely for
|economic reasons.
|
|Now, i know this is a feature, not a bug, but is there any intelligent AV
|software which is both robust & reliable and capable of overriding account
|limitations, enabling automatic updates while logged in as a limited user?
|
|Many thanks in advance for any advice
|
|

 

[nut]

Shouldn't "auto-update" have absolutely nothing to do with who is
logged in (or not)? Every AV software that I have used that has some
auto-update function does it even if _nobody_ is logged in. NAV
corporate does - so does F-Secure. Mcafee and Kapersky did (haven't
used these for years, though). I don't know about the non-corporate
version of NAV, but I can't see why it shouldn't be able to update
without someone being logged in.

I was under the impression the NAV services load on startup and have
administrative rights but that doesn't appear to be the case. If a limited
user is logged in, it'll pop up saying the virus defs are out of date (a
sure sign the updater isn't working!) and then, if the user chooses to
perform an update, it fails saying that the user doesn't have sufficient
rights to perform the update. Symantecs website has this documented and say
there's no way round it except to opt for the corporate version.

With the corporate client which i played with today, the update options are
ghosted out... maybe this is just because a limited user cannot change the
options. I have installed the corporate version on a single workstation to
evaluate it for a few weeks, so will keep an eye on it and see what happens.

Sorry - just reread original message: it says "live update", not "auto
update". I guess that maybe that means someone "live" has to do the
updating? Maybe that's one reason why the corporate version costs
more (or does it, and by how much?)

Live Update is just Symantecs fancy name for auto update... it's meant to do
it without any user intervention.

We are considering making all our users admins again now anyway... we're
faced with numerous problems, including word documents failing to open -
"insufficient memory" being a popular excuse despite the stations all having
a minimum of 256MB - where they open fine when logged in as admin, counter
strike not working without running it as an administrator, and printers
getting screwed up.

The main reason we have for not allowing users admin rights is becuase of
the amount of crap they've been installing... mostly dialler software which
doesnt affect the performance of neither the machine nor our network, but
makes the machines look cosmetically dirty to our customers.

Faced with either sorting out these problems ad-hoc or just cleaning the
machines down once a week, we're almost all in agreement to opt for the
latter - myself being the only person to disagree, believing that there must
be workarounds for all these problems, it's just a matter of time finding
them.

Explaining this to my colleagues, whilst wasting a lot of time trawling
groups and knowledge bases, is proving fruitless, and i'm rapidly giving up
the will to persevere... especially given that i spend more time addressing
these issues in my spare time than i do whilst at work.