Archives
Archives
| From: | Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which desktop antivirus? | ||
| Date: | Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:36:53 | ||
| Message-Id: | 201110301235.32668.michaelkintzios@gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which desktop antivirus? by Neil Bothwick |
||
| 1 | On Saturday 22 Oct 2011 21:31:32 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 | > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:03:44 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 | > > ClamVM has poor detection rates. You might want to look into AVG Free |
| 4 | > > for Linux. |
| 5 | > |
| 6 | > Do you have any documentation for this? |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > I'm not saying you're wrong, rather that I'd like to know more. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | This is not current, but if it is to be believed (and without details on the |
| 11 | methodology I'd be reluctant to believe it) clamav came 2nd after Karspersky: |
| 12 | |
| 13 | http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/byteclub/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270831 |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | This on the other hand is both current and more meaningful, because it |
| 17 | includes zero day attacks: |
| 18 | |
| 19 | http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats |
| 20 | |
| 21 | ClamAV on linux comes 3rd for zero day attacks and 16th on retries. |
| 22 | -- |
| 23 | Regards, |
| 24 | Mick |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |