From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RKUdB-0005Jb-IR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:36:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E416521C06C; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799D221C048 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so785375wyh.40 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 05:35:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=JDYJAsEisSc+r3P4NuVKyxGNG0THmZqqEKruuIyBEpE=; b=nc+mClPwzvvfamCVyRVGkzQgFACZ97ned0TMtn0gCGuDylSEAX7G2CyJEcpe3VxyqK xenHVe+rCobula2sqQEAl9fJcQbVM+aIuR89cHIhn5xcExvQQKKSPx51TqNHiPpINFym g8KyJxx6omf9cOCv9bz/NXdX/4fC1bD3vwk1U= Received: by 10.216.14.29 with SMTP id c29mr1283803wec.13.1319978135738; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 05:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y38sm25913700wbm.2.2011.10.30.05.35.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 30 Oct 2011 05:35:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which desktop antivirus? Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:35:14 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.6-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201110221227.43568.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20111022213132.5a553a8e@digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111022213132.5a553a8e@digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4859466.6L92DQzXPS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110301235.32668.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: f40c045246c6fd59eba4d5a9be9e8a30 --nextPart4859466.6L92DQzXPS Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday 22 Oct 2011 21:31:32 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:03:44 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > ClamVM has poor detection rates. You might want to look into AVG Free > > for Linux. >=20 > Do you have any documentation for this? >=20 > I'm not saying you're wrong, rather that I'd like to know more. This is not current, but if it is to be believed (and without details on th= e=20 methodology I'd be reluctant to believe it) clamav came 2nd after Karspersk= y: http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/byteclub/viewblogpost.htm?p=3D339270831 This on the other hand is both current and more meaningful, because it=20 includes zero day attacks: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats ClamAV on linux comes 3rd for zero day attacks and 16th on retries. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart4859466.6L92DQzXPS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk6tRJQACgkQVTDTR3kpaLbHhQCgnZw4HAJb9/9mBmnDFan2T7ui 2bwAoM/MPmKED8kjyIIALQg+yOwJ1AXy =CvEI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4859466.6L92DQzXPS--