On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38:23PM -0700, Joe Sloan wrote: > John Rudd wrote: > > Joe Sloan wrote: > >> John Rudd wrote: > >>> Dennis Peterson wrote: > >>>> And to follow up on the earlier > >>>> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus > >>>> distribution, > >>> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the > >>> net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is, at best, > >>> naive. And a naive sysadmin is a danger to us all. > >> I don't think anybody on this list has ever said windows can't be > >> subverted. The swarms of compromised xp boxes that are rented out in > >> blocks of 1000 or 10000 for sending spam are proof enough of that. > > > > From reading the quotes, someone was suggesting that they're immune to > > compromises because they're not running windows. That statement is > > covered by my assertion of "that idea is naive". > > I don't think they said they were immune to compromises, but that there > was no compelling case for the added expense of virus scanning all > outgoing mail in a non-windows environment.
You have to wonder what kind of environment can't afford outgoing virus scanning? It's much lighter than checking for spam and usually less traffic goes out than comes in. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
