SOT: AntiVirus Software

[Scott Silva]

Dimitri Yioulos spake the following on 1/26/2007 12:11 PM:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 11:56 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Dimitri Yioulos wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Erm, yes.. that's what BDC is that I'm referring to above.
>>
>>  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?
>> You can always run bdc --update manually right after the autoupdate. If the
>> autoupdate worked, the manual run shouldn't find anything to update.
>>
>>> Also, must bitdefender be "started"?  I
>> No. the free version is a console app. There's nothing to start.
>>
>>> And, finally, should
>>> bitdefender-autoupdate be run as a cron job, or does MS handle that?
>> MS handles that, by default ever hour.
>>
>> You should see log messages like this:
>>
>> Jan 26 06:09:53 xanadu update.virus.scanners: Found bitdefender installed
>> Jan 26 06:09:53 xanadu update.virus.scanners: Running autoupdate for
>> bitdefender
>>
>> Jan 26 07:09:17 xanadu update.virus.scanners: Found bitdefender installed
>> Jan 26 07:09:17 xanadu update.virus.scanners: Running autoupdate for
>> bitdefender --
>> MailScanner mailing list
>> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>>
>> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>>
>> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
> 
> Thanks, Matt.  I admit that some of my questions seemed to have an intuitive 
> answer, but I felt I could go ahead and ask anyway for comfort's sake.  I 
> tested the server against GFI tests, and bitdefender did, indeed, work.
> 
> In an earlier post, Glenn mentioned that bitdefender could be accessed from 
> MailWatch's Tools page, but that's not the case on my system.  Might I humbly 
> reask here if anyone knows how to add this functionality.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Dimitri
> 
Here are the two files you need. Unpack them into your mailscanner directory,
and make sure they have the same permissions that the clamav files have,

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bitdefender.tgz
Type: application/x-compressed
Size: 1064 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20070126/91474a9d/bitdefender-0001.bin