On January 10, 2005 08:58 am, Trog wrote: > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 16:53, Freddie Cash wrote: > > You're missing the main point of ClamAV: it's a server-based virus > > scanner for e-mail.
> > It's not a workstation AV solution. Just because some people try > > to shoe-horn it into a workstation AV solution does not mean that > > it is designed for that purpose. Look at the virus database for > > ClamAV: there's only ~22,000 viruses listed, 95% of which are all > > spread through e-mail. Compare that to a commercial, workstation > > AV solution that has over ~80,000 different viruses, from true > > file-borne viruses, to boot-sector viruses, to polymorphic Win32 > > viruses. > To keep your numbers in perspective, there are only ~1500 viruses > listed in the entire WildList. And I don't believe that 95% figure > either. I'm going by what freshclam reports for the number of virus signatures in the DB. Today's freshclam update shows 29,374 signatures in the database. The 95% I pretty much pulled out of the air based on all the docs on the ClamAV site that say ClamAV is mainly concerned with e-mail-borne viruses, and not old boot-sector, or file-based viruses and such. I think it was in a FAQ about why ClamAV only detects ~20,000 viruses while AV App X detects ~80,000. I can't find the reference now, but there was mention of it on the clamav.net website at one point. -- Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech. School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
