On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:46:50PM +0000, Wulfy wrote: > Oh, I wasn't meaning to imply they were active or that they were a risk > to *buntu desktops. It's just that the statement that there are no > Linux viruses is misleading.
How so? Fact is that there are current viruses for Windows, loads of them. And by current I mean viruses that still propogate even if you have all the latest updates for your operating system, and an effective firewall. It is generally accepted that you *need* AV software on Windows because there are current threats. Whilst i appreciate some people don't run any AV on windows for most users it is best practice to do so. Compare that situation with Linux. There are no *current* threats that I know of which are viruses targetting current versions of applications in any version of Ubuntu. > That all the known vulnerabilities are > fixed doesn't mean we're "safe"... just that we're comparatively safe > as compared to Windows. What do you think an AV program does? It searches for known viruses. If there are no known viruses then what's the point in running one? > I don't think an AV for Linux is required just > yet.. :@) > > Agreed, lets hope it stats that way. I am not suggesting you are wrong, I just think that when someone stumbles over threads such as this they should get the full picture and not think that because there are 14 viruses in the distant past for Linux that they should automatically install AV software. It's a risk assessment that each person needs to take on their own systems. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
