On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Zvi Kave wrote:
Why ClamAV has significally small number of known viruses
in comparison to other AV software ?
There's only a small number of viruses in the wild. MS-DOS viruses from 10
years ago are not likely to pose a problem any longer. Having them in your
database only allows you to inflate your virus pattern numbers so that people
who are impressed by big numbers will be impressed.
Isn't that what the phishing signatures are for?
</troll>
Actually, it's not nearly as bad as I'd suspected... only 1069 of the
62954 signatures are for phishing. Of course, those signatures are
responsible for 84% of the email that clamav blocks [1] and, based on
reports in #clamav, a similar fraction of the false positives.
[1] based on the past 10,000 messages blocked by clamav at my site
Damian Menscher
--
-=#| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Ofc:(650)253-2757 |#=-
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
