On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> We haven't seen an increase in virii detected by McAfee or Symantec
> on servers downstream from our CanIt system. Maybe that's because
> blocking the unsafe extensions kills them before we even call ClamAV.
I've attached the statistics
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:04 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Post-Cisco, ClamAV seems to have greatly declined in usefulness.
> It catches hardly anything anymore... anyone else experiencing this?
Are you using clamav-unofficial-signatures? We are.
I have no idea how much we should be catching. But
DFS wrote on 03/20/2014 03:04:07 PM:
> Post-Cisco, ClamAV seems to have greatly declined in usefulness.
> It catches hardly anything anymore... anyone else experiencing this?
>
> In my experience, most of the commercial AV scanners for Linux are
horrible.
> They often use undocumented wire proto
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
Jason Englander wrote:
> Personally and professionally I've used ClamAV (via clamd) for a
> long time. I actually used to be a "team member" pre-Cisco,
> pre-SourceFire.
Post-Cisco, ClamAV seems to have greatly declined in usefulness.
It catches hardly a
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Anne Bennett wrote:
A belated thanks for the patch! ;-) What are you using now
for anti-virus?
No problem :-)
Personally and professionally I've used ClamAV (via clamd) for a long
time. I actually used to be a "team member" pre-Cisco, pre-SourceFire.
I've used Avira
5 matches
Mail list logo
