Hi, >Windows. Hmmm, I suppose you did say 'possible'. :)
You are right, but up to the moment in which the people continue to use this OS, I have not choice. I try to persuade them by highlighting the missing of care of user privacy, especially windows 10 that is spying machine https://www. privacytools.io/. >Perhaps it's just my age, but I'm no fan of "the cloud". Having said >that, the architecture makes a lot of sense in some applications, and >I feel that real-time scanning of untrusted data, perhaps perversely, >is probably one of them. Most of us here will be familiar with DNSBL >services. I routinely use half a dozen of them myself. However while >it's one thing to offer service which supplies UDP query responses to >all the mail servers on the planet, striving to do the something rather >bigger over TCP for every (well, every Windows) computer on Earth is a >very different proposition. > >For the sake of comparison, the DNSBLs I use vary in average response >times from a little under 50ms to a little over 500ms. But there are >occasions at busy times when a response takes a few seconds, and this >is for (a) client numbers which I guess will be less than one percent >of client numbers seen by something serving the world's Windows boxes >(b) one single UDP query per message as compared with perhaps several >dozen TCP queries while loading a Web page full of assorted, and very >possibly malicious, 'monetizing' frippery, and (c) mail. It's just >mail, and nobody cares if it takes a few seconds longer to get there. >Well there is that one guy in Hastings, but anyway... > >You can see the sort of thing I see may be necessary (if even then not >necessarily sufficient) to protect against a zero-day in 'Edge' if you >must talk directly to the machines which are running it in real time. > >Will it scale? I agree with this position and I prefer to avoid cloud based service whenever I have a local alternative. So I will continue using clamWin together with clamSentinel even if the second is a little bit outdated. Best Regards, Salvatore >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: "G.W. Haywood" <[email protected]> >Data: 05/03/2017 20.27 >A: <[email protected]> >Ogg: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV for windows: GUI and chocolatey package > >Hi there, > >On Sun, 5 Mar 2017, Joel Esler wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2017, at 05:46, Erotavlas_turbo wrote: >> > >> > whenever it is possible, I prefer to avoid using closed source and >> > proprietary software... I would like to use it as standard AV for >> > several cases including mail scanning, real-time file scanning, >> > web protection ... several components for windows ... > >Windows. Hmmm, I suppose you did say 'possible'. :) > >> > ... exist several proprietary solutions with freeware version >> > based on clamAV (e.g. Immunet). >> >> We make Immunet. It combines a cloud based detection engine with >> the offline capability of clamav. It's extremely effective and free. > >Perhaps it's just my age, but I'm no fan of "the cloud". Having said >that, the architecture makes a lot of sense in some applications, and >I feel that real-time scanning of untrusted data, perhaps perversely, >is probably one of them. Most of us here will be familiar with DNSBL >services. I routinely use half a dozen of them myself. However while >it's one thing to offer service which supplies UDP query responses to >all the mail servers on the planet, striving to do the something rather >bigger over TCP for every (well, every Windows) computer on Earth is a >very different proposition. > >For the sake of comparison, the DNSBLs I use vary in average response >times from a little under 50ms to a little over 500ms. But there are >occasions at busy times when a response takes a few seconds, and this >is for (a) client numbers which I guess will be less than one percent >of client numbers seen by something serving the world's Windows boxes >(b) one single UDP query per message as compared with perhaps several >dozen TCP queries while loading a Web page full of assorted, and very >possibly malicious, 'monetizing' frippery, and (c) mail. It's just >mail, and nobody cares if it takes a few seconds longer to get there. >Well there is that one guy in Hastings, but anyway... > >You can see the sort of thing I see may be necessary (if even then not >necessarily sufficient) to protect against a zero-day in 'Edge' if you >must talk directly to the machines which are running it in real time. > >Will it scale? > >-- > >73, >Ged. >_______________________________________________ >clamav-users mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users > > >Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: >https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq > >http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml > _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
