Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1932 mails)

[G T Smith <grahamsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hans Witvliet wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 16:10 -0400, James Knott wrote:
> > Ken Schneider wrote:
> > > Fred A. Miller pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
> > > > Where does one get a free key for antivir that ships with 11.0? I've 
> > > > looked for it "all over" and can't find it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > Took all of two minutes to find.
> > >
> > > http://www.free-av.de/en/index.html
> > I wonder how that compares with ClamAV, which had been included with 
> > SUSE 10.3?
>
> Well, i can give you some numbers, as i have a nice collection of
> viruses..
>
> Latest version of clamAV just manages to recognise about 60% and leaves
> 40% unrecognized 
>
> Antivir gets 95%.
>
> Looks nice... But when fed with over 60,000 different viruses, those
> remaining 5% is still 3000 harmfull files. And even _one_ might be
> enough to get a M$-machine corrupted / compromised.
>
> One needs at least two or three filters to detect all
> (or better no highly sussteptible O.S. to be protected...)
>
> hw


These results are appalling. They basically suggests that clamAV is
effectively useless and Antivir is worse than Norton (which is really
going some). The significant number of mail related viruses will
probably be blocked by any spam filtering (which in itself is not
intended for the purpose) but this does not reduce the risks here. The
much hard work done by many to get these thing to work well is somewhat
undermined if they are not fit for purpose as this is suggesting.
Anything under %99.9 in an AV filter is basically unacceptable

Multiple AV filters is not a solution to this.

Out of interest and to balance the information have any of the Linux
based anti virus filters been scrutinised by the Virus Bulletin (and if
so does anyone have the results). VB costs an arm and leg to subscribe
to, and since I left the University I worked for I have not had access
to the full reports.

If VB has arrived at similar conclusion what this therefore suggests is
that it is probably best to invest in one of the better client based
solutions for Windows boxes and not waste time on these efforts on
Linux. Or alternatively spend money on a commercial licence on something
such Eset, F-Prot (which I know do Linux based products) or Sophos or
Kaspersky (which I do not know about) which all have very solid reputations.

I am mainly working within a Linux environment at the moment and have
felt that installing an AV solution was not of much value. However, if I
have to work more with Windows at future date this would have to be
reconsidered and on the basis of this information would not even
consider either of these solutions.

- --
==============================================================================
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

Bjarne Stroustrup
==============================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIaeHSasN0sSnLmgIRAkluAKCZQh+YwAnjO0jxykzRoL5iSFl/5QCg39wc
XcpN2L7R8xWrPJtjUhSRk0k=
=Esdn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx