SOT: AntiVirus Software

[Dimitri Yioulos]

On Thursday 25 January 2007 6:58 pm, Scott Silva wrote:
> Matt Kettler spake the following on 1/25/2007 3:11 PM:
> > Glenn Steen wrote:
> >> On 25/01/07, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> >>>> The free version still includes this statement in it;
> >>>>
> >>>>     Thank  you  for  choosing  to  install  the  freeware version of
> >>>>     BitDefender for Linux Console Free Edition. It can be used  free
> >>>>     of  charge.  It is fully functional and without any restrictions
> >>>>     regarding the licensed version of the product.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like it is still free.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at my logs, it doesn't seem to be hitting anything here lately.
> >>> Especially the new Trojan.Downloader-??? that clam has been getting
> >>> since last
> >>> weekend. Even a scan of the quarantined file shows nothing. Even
> >>> McAfee is
> >>> getting these!
> >>>
> >>> I guess it is time to hit the flusher on Bitdefender.
> >>
> >> Still seems to be on par with mcafee here.... which isn't saying that
> >> much:-):-)
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >
> > It seems in recent months both sides of the clamav and bitdefender hits
> > have diverged considerably.
> >
> > Let's look at some numbers from my system. Note I've excluded
> > "HTML-Phishing" matches by clamav from this, as that's not something
> > BitDefender (aka bdc) looks for.
> >
> >
> > Dec 1, 2006-today:
> > messages with viruses found by clam but not bdc: 142
> > messages with viruses found by bdc but clam: 148
> >
> > Looks like both bdc and clam are catching about the same number of
> > messages that the other missed..
> >
> >
> >
> > July 1, 2006 - Dec 1, 2006
> > clam not bdc: 39
> > bdc not clam: 30
> >
> > Note that in the previous 5 months, these numbers were MUCH smaller. This
> > tells me that in the past clam and bdc both matched most of the same
> > messages. However, recently, that's changed and a lot more viruses are
> > coming out that are only caught by one of the two.
> >
> > This might be due to an increase in how fast viruses mutate, I'm not
> > sure. However, clearly BitDefender is still doing a lot of good here,
> > catching several things clam is missing.
>
> My volume is still low enough to leave it running. I think I am dumping
> most of the viruses with blacklists, as my hit rate is very low. And
> MailScanner is catching them by filetype rules even when the virus scanners
> miss.
>
> --

I apologize if I'm taking this post OT, but is anyone using the "free" 
BitDefender console version with MS?  I installed it, and ran MS 
bitdefender-autoupdate, which seemed to work.  But, it's hard to tell if the 
virus signatures were truly updated.  Does anyone know if this is the case?  
Also, must bitdefender be "started"?  If so, how?  And, finally, should 
bitdefender-autoupdate be run as a cron job, or does MS handle that?

Thanks.

Dimitri

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.