On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:35:11PM +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:29:12PM +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote: > > > > You probably knew already, but you really don't need anti-virus for > > Linux - The developers acctually closes the holes the viruses are > > crawling throug, instead of creating a market by letting 3. parties > > create programs which serach and destroy them AFTER they got into the > > system... > > Still it is a good idea to install such a tool. > No point in being a carrier. > > -------- > Yeah, point taken. But unless he is intending to run a file server for > Windows-clients there is no need to spend money, CPU, Memory, Scan the archives for samba questions. LOTS of them. > hardrive-space, bandwith OR labour on a anti-virus tool. If some idiot Disk space is closing in on fifty cents US per gigabyte. CPU cycles continue to improve. > sends him an infected email intended to spread trouhgout the outlook > address book, it will simply just stop when it hits his evolution/etc. We agreee.... still... If you establish an account for a friend that uses MS as I did recently... Or you forward a message to a friend that uses MS. Or tomorrow a virus targets evolution on Linux.... Or tomorrow a virus targets something else in Linux. Or your work place puts a MS based box in front of you and you connect via ssh to home bypassing some virus filtering tool they have in place. Or some other... It took me a couple days to install clamav and clamav-milter and get things setup to my satisfaction (correctly I hope). When a virus targets Linux, as it will some day, it will be nice to have things setup in advance. I had the luxury of researching the topic and tool selection over six months.... Now I can toggle it on and off with a simple pair of chkconfig and service commands. If we as a community work hard to limit our risks the 'bad boys' will continue to go after other boxes. Day zero attacks are a real risk. -- T o m M i t c h e l l /dev/dull where insight begins.
