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.
--
Terry Coles
64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux
--
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:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
