Virii detection very low

[Glenn Steen]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On 26/10/05, Rick Cooper <rcooper at dwford.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]On
> > Behalf Of Julian Field
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:33 PM
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Virii detection very low
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > >>What exactly is the licensing situation for Bitdefender?
> > >>Is it really free as in beer for all situations? Or when do you have to
> > >>pay for it?
> > >>How do Bitdefender make any profit? (assuming it's not
> > free-as-in-speech)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >From the BitDefender site (Linux Free - Console)
> > >http://www.bitdefender.com/PRODUCT-63-en--BitDefender-Linux-Edition.html
> > >
> > >
> > >BitDefender Linux Edition is a freeware product, which doesn't require a
> > >license to be used.
> > >
> > >
> > That's pretty clear. Thanks for the pointer. I will start recommending
> > it in addition to ClamAV.
> > Apart from being free, how good is its reputation for high detection
> > rate and fast updates compared to other products?
> >
>
> Assuming the Linux version is the same as the windows version, because I
> don't keep track of how often the Linux version updates even though I use
> it, it updates quite frequently and it's not uncommon for the Linux version
> to catch the viruses before clam or f-prot even though they are before BD in
> my exim scan acls. I use the windows professional version 8 on my laptop and
> have been quite happy with it for more than a year.
>
> If you would like to see an interesting update frequency comparison check
> this link
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1760884,00.asp
>
> Note that the products marked beta are updated MUCH more often than there
> general release version. Not a single one of the release versions is in the
> top 50% while the betas are all in the top 5% or so. BD comes in the top 4
> when you remove the beta products from the list.
>
> Rick
>

I've been running it with McAfee and Clamav for more than a year now.
If one looks at the stats for detections *without* Phishing, then BD
and Clam are tied for first place (note that both have been the "sole
detector" at some time), with McAfee just a hair or two behind (but
even so, McAfee has also been the sole detector too, just not as
often). With phishing detection included, clamav is the sole leader,
with McAfee well behind... BD is rumoured to have begun detecting
phises too, but I've not seen it happen in any bulk.
During this time I've had one (1) bad update that required manual
intervention, compared to zero (0) for clamav and two (2) for mcafee.

I'd say that at that price, you can't afford to not use it.
--
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

------------------------ 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 Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!