Bit Defender

[Steen, Glenn]

    [ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I'd guess the big difference here is that McAfee and Clamav both have phishing detection, and BD don't (and Clam catches a few more than uvscan). This is my experience at least.

I've been using all three for a while, and at some point in time all have been the sole saving factor (disregarding the phishing bit). Statistivally the FN/FP rates are very low for all, and the "time to market" is generally very good for all (although mcafee often is last, when a new threat comes around).

I've personally reported at least one virus that clamav didn't catch and uvscan _should_ have caught... but didn't (a bizex thing variant), and reading the clamav virusdb announce list, one can see that BD is often cited as the source (along with a host of other).

What this shows is that one should never "put all eggs in one basket", but instead use at least two or three different... provided the volumes allow it, of course.

About the licensing bit... What is there to be confused about? bdc is free to use, is what they say... How you use it is pretty much not their business:-):-). That they push their own MS-lookalike isn't surprising, now is it?

-- Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From:   MailScanner mailing list on behalf of Dhawal Doshy
Sent:   fr 2005-02-11 15:06
To:     MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Cc:	
Subject:        Re: Bit Defender
Pete Russell wrote:
> Of course i am usijng clamav already.
>
> My question was is it worth the effort to have both? Does BD ever catch
> a virus not caught by clamav?
>
> Pete

twice in ~3000 mails.. I am ASSUMING that this was due to the fact the
clam was probably being updated at that time (thereby creating a lock
asking MS not to use it).

Also in the same result, thrice did uvscan detect a virus when both clam
/ bdc failed to detect it.

Again in the same result, 10 times clam detected a virus when both
uvscan / bdc failed to detect it (all attributed to phishing detection).
So this contradicts my previous statement that clam detects more viruses
compared to uvscan.

Some statistics for viruses detected over a period of 12 hours that you
might find interesting.

Bitdefender: 2992
ClamAV: 3075
McAfee: 3065

- dhawal

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!