John Rudd schrieb:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
(Remember the viruses ClamAV checks for
are *Windows* viruses. A unixoid OS doesn't run ClamAV for its own
protection but for the protection of Windows clients.)
OpenOffice isn't vulnerable to Office Macro viruses?
AFAIK, no. Kaspersky has claimed
Le Mon 12/11/2007, Tilman Schmidt disait
John Rudd schrieb:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
(Remember the viruses ClamAV checks for
are *Windows* viruses. A unixoid OS doesn't run ClamAV for its own
protection but for the protection of Windows clients.)
OpenOffice isn't vulnerable to Office
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Also, OpenOffice on Linux is normally run from a non-privileged user ID,
heavily limiting the ability of any malicious macro to harm or propagate.
Huh? What difference does running as a non-privileged user make when
the method of infection is to spread via *documents*?
Joe Clements schrieb:
For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
improvements in 2 areas. One of them is security.
I think you are wrong there. Security doesn't improve market share.
Unixoid OSes have been much more secure than Windows since Windows was
born, and look
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
(Remember the viruses ClamAV checks for
are *Windows* viruses. A unixoid OS doesn't run ClamAV for its own
protection but for the protection of Windows clients.)
OpenOffice isn't vulnerable to Office Macro viruses?
(I honestly don't know, just asking)
David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The philosophical one: Do heuristics like PhishingScanURLs belong in a
virus scanner? I realize that once the engine is in place, it's
tempting to add features, but I'm not convinced such things belong in
a virus scanner. I think they are more in the
Graham Toal wrote:
In fact with a decent string search algorithm (using a trie of
strings) there should be very little extra overhead in adding more
strings to be searched in parallel.
PhishingScanURLs does not use string matching. It uses regexes,
and in general regex matching is NP-hard
On Tue, October 30, 2007 10:15 am, David F. Skoll said:
(Our customers, in fact, always run ClamAV in conjunction with an
anti-spam scanner, so it's no benefit to them to have Clam try to do
anti-spam.)
I usually find it a detriment: ClamAV is nowhere _near_ as good at
distinguishing
On October 29, 2007 06:53 pm Joe Clements wrote:
For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
improvements in 2 areas. One of them is security. I would like to see
1 security suite which has the capability to deal with ALL threats.
Windows security has to have an anti
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Tue, October 30, 2007 10:15 am, David F. Skoll said:
(Our customers, in fact, always run ClamAV in conjunction with an
anti-spam scanner, so it's no benefit to them to have Clam try to do
anti-spam.)
I usually find it a detriment: ClamAV is nowhere _near_ as good
John Rudd wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/ClamAV/318642.mbox
David F. Skoll wrote:
Hello,
A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to no from the
default yes dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linux, so
David F. Skoll wrote:
Hello,
A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to no from the
default yes dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linux, so
John Rudd wrote:
I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/ClamAV/318642.mbox
David F. Skoll wrote:
Hello,
A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to no from the
default yes dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linux, so it's
On Monday 29 October 2007 18:07, Dennis Peterson wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
Joe Clements wrote:
For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
improvements
in 2 areas. One of them is security. I would like to see 1 security suite
which
has the capability to deal with ALL threats. Windows security has to have an
anti virus, anti trojan, adware
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:25:14 -0700
Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Clements wrote:
For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
improvements
in 2 areas. One of them is security. I would like to see 1 security suite
which
has the capability to deal
Steve Holdoway wrote:
I don't see where Linux is unique in this regard. I also don't see why the
success of
Linux is particularly important vs BSD, Solaris, Windows, etc. But I suppose
that
discussion is for another forum.
I think the OP may beconsidering linux as a desktop.
Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:25:14 -0700
Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see where Linux is unique in this regard. I also don't see why the
success of
Linux is particularly important vs BSD, Solaris, Windows, etc. But I suppose
that
discussion is for
20 matches
Mail list logo
