[Clamav-users] clamav vs. other virus scanners
Hi all, Recently I noticed that Norton AV clears more than 60,000 viruses, maybe other virus scanners also have similar numbers, why do we have a very less number? Is it because we do not have big database or we protect against new viruses only and keep new definition updated? I personally had no problems, cos' I have saved few viruses to test with clamav and it detected them all. But then I have a LAN of only few machines. Do other people with big setups and budget prefer commercial antiviruses to clamav? Also, is clamav a bit worried that once the database grows big it will consume more memory and create other problems. Thanks. Regards, -Payal -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html ___ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] clamav vs. other virus scanners
On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:21 pm, Payal Rathod wrote: > Hi all, > Recently I noticed that Norton AV clears more than 60,000 viruses, > maybe other virus scanners also have similar numbers, why do we have a > very less number? Two main reasons: 1. ClamAV has a high proportion of recent viruses, and a lower proportion of old viruses. Other products often count ancient viruses in their list of signatures - it looks good for marketing, even if no-one's seen that particular bit of code in the wild for 10 years. 2. Many vendors count minor variations in viruses as multiple signatures, whereas ClamAV often catches several variations with a single signature. Again, the higher number looks good for marketing, even though it really means the product is ratehr less efficient at detecting the viruses and has to search a bigger database of signatures to achieve the same effect. Antony. -- Wanted: telepath. You know where to apply. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html ___ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] clamav vs. other virus scanners
Antony Stone wrote: On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:21 pm, Payal Rathod wrote: Hi all, Recently I noticed that Norton AV clears more than 60,000 viruses, maybe other virus scanners also have similar numbers, why do we have a very less number? 2. Many vendors count minor variations in viruses as multiple signatures, whereas ClamAV often catches several variations with a single signature. Again, the higher number looks good for marketing, even though it really means the product is ratehr less efficient at detecting the viruses and has to search a bigger database of signatures to achieve the same effect. Another area where numbers are pumped is in application exploits and other non-virus related signatures. Desktop AVs will count signatures for things such as Outlook MIME vulnerabilities, spyware, adware, etc. Some will trigger "backdoor" warnings on tools that have been commercially designed for the purpose of remote administration as well, under the guise that users will want to be alerted if such programs are found on thier systems. DS --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html ___ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
