Terry, you state "Certainly, on desktop Linux, there are far more virus signatures in the virus database than there are known viruses that attack Linux." Thats an interesting "fact", pray where did you get it from? particularily the "known viruses that attack" linux bit. Google has its PLay Store just as Apple has its app store - there is no reason for one to be more "vulnerable" than the other. I remember the days of "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" the hayday of FUD. Now it seems the AV producers are doing the same thing. You don't have to be a genius to realise that there would be no market for AV developers without "viruses". I am still waiting for someone to detail a genuine UNIX (or LInux) virus as opposed to just being stupid and dowloading and running a script "rm -rf /". I agree about android running things as a single user, but there is a difference with malware and viruses. AV software can find viruses but malware is up to the user. Andy
On Tuesday 01 January 2013 13:59:40 Terry Coles wrote: > On Tuesday 01 Jan 2013 13:38:43 Andrew R Paterson wrote: > > I strongly believe (feel free to correct me please!) that most (if not > > all) > > the AV software you get for Linux (and android?) is just using the same > > signature databases as the main windows versions and thus all you are > > doing > > is ensuring you don't download any windows viruses. > > Certainly, on desktop Linux, there are far more virus signatures in the > virus database than there are known viruses that attack Linux. I would > agree that the main reason for running a virus scanner on a 'pure' Linux > machine is to avoid inadvertently passing on Windows viruses to Windows > users that I communicate with. > > > As I say, please prove me wrong :) > > AFAIK, there are viruses that attack Android (ref Natalie's earlier post). > It may be that the virus databases also include Windows viruses for the > same reason as above, but I'm not aware of this. > > You must acknowledge that even a pure Linux machine is not invulnerable, > although social engineering seems to be the only successful attack vector. > Android is slightly more vulnerable than a pure Linux machine since the > users generally have full root privileges, plus it is a more attractive > target, so I would be very surprised to hear that there are no Android > viruses. > > I also use Avast (on my windows boxes) and am indeed happy with it - but > > AV > > s/w for Linux and android - show me some proof that they actually do > > something (and don't tell me they are root-checkers please!). > > I can't show proof, so until someone does, I'll continue to use the tools > available. -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2013-01-08 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread on mailing list: mailto:[email protected] How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
