From: "Tim" <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, 2010/April/20 06:00 > Tim: >>> If you read the reviews of anti-virus software, from time to time, you >>> will see that none of them are 100% effective. The last review I read >>> came to the conclusion that the most effective checkers only managed to >>> find about 60% of the viruses, and not all the same viruses. That is a >>> pretty poor rating - just a bit less than half will get through. > > jdow: >> The last time I ran though a complete rating of AV tools none of them >> were >> as bad as you declare. Please enhance your assertions with facts not >> fantasy. It makes your assertions stronger. > > It's been a while since I last bothered to check up on software that I > don't run, however "60%" was the effectiveness rating at that time, and > it did draw (internet) headlines. Are you seriously telling me that you > hadn't encountered that? I'm talking about news stories that circulated > somewhere around a year ago, if I recall correctly. It was notably > surprising because of that low effectiveness rate, even running multiple > anti-virus software still left a lot undetected. At the time, it was > used to sink the boot into the silly notion that anti-virus software was > enough to protect you from bad software. > > From time to time, the figure will change, but there can't be any sane > argument that they're 100% effective, as it's simply not possible. > > I didn't bookmark the info, since I've no desire to go bookmarking every > tidbit that I come across, but it's not hard to Google search this sort > of thing, and come across quite a lot of less-than-encouraging info: > > http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/17 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#Effectiveness > http://blogs.cisco.com/security/comments/the_effectiveness_of_antivirus_on_new_malware_samples/ > http://www.zdnet.com.au/why-popular-antivirus-apps-do-not-work-139264249.htm Bum reading of the data. All that shows is that some products that call themselves "Anti-Virus" are dreadful. Some are very good. Here is a set of comparisons with a selection of products and a detailed methodology. You can find the tests you want by digging. For a test of responsiveness to malwares on 100 brand new samples detection was between 60% and 99% depending on the product tested. http://www.av-comparatives.org/ It's time to stop this. We're wandering off the Linux malware discussion, which I suspect is finished. {^_^} -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
