On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:51 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote: > Marcus Zingmark wrote: > > I guess this can become a big question of opinion but, wich Antivirus > > software is the top of the notch? If I want something with a nice gui > > that's userfriendly, of course, often updated virus definitions and at > > last, without any costs?! > > For Linux? > > There's not much point to having an anti-virus program to stop Linux > viruses. There aren't enough of them, and to the best of my knowledge, > they all exploited security holes in the OS. Keep up to date with > updates, and you should be all right. > > (Note: I haven't been keeping close track, but the only exploits against > Fedora installations that have been reported here have been because > people have installed web applications that have been insecure). > > No, the reason for having antivirus on Linux is to scan e-mails, > fileshares, or web proxies. All of those are (normally) configured with > a command line, and you'd have to use a command line to set them up. > Once they're set up, there's next to no need for a UI anyway. > > With that in mind, I've been finding clamav to be as good as anything > else I've seen for frequency of updates and reliability. > http://www.clamav.net , http://www.clamav.net/3rdparty.html , or see > Fedora Extras. > > Hope this helps, > > James. > > -- > E-mail address: james | Important note: when washing your brain out with > @westexe.demon.co.uk | nitric acid, it is important to stop *after* you've > | erased the distressing images and *before* you get > | the urge to install AOL. -- Jim Andrew 9.12.2005 Personally, I have found that F-Prot is great. I have messed around with Clamav and it worked for a while but then crapped out. Not only that, you had to mess around way too much to get it to do a thorough scan. F-prot has great documentation, updates are frequent, and it just plain works. Highly recommend it. John >
