basic - continued

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:29:20 +0100
Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:35:17 +0100
> > Gilles Gravier <ggravier at fsfe.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On 08/02/2010 09:28, TSmith wrote:
> >>>  > In any case, unless you're actually building a file server or a
> >>>  > mail server, having an anti-virus on Linux is pretty much
> >>>  > overkill.
> >>>
> >>> Why overkill?
> >>>   
> >> Well... given the actual number of Linux viruses in the wild... And
> >> the system security mecanisms (which prevent a user application
> >> from messing with system files)...
> >>
> >> Most Linux antivirus use virus definition files for Windows...
> >> because they are used to control files stored on a file server
> >> (serving Windows machines) or a mail server (accessed by Windows
> >> clients).
> >>
> >> Gilles.
> >>
> > I'd like to further state that anti-virus software still can only
> > protect from the known.  It can't protect from what is coming up
> > tomorrow or the next day.  It is a rear-guard action at the very
> > best.
> 
> You've never heard of heuristic analysis, huh?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_analysis
> 
Yes, I have, but it still can't predict an attack that has yet to be
invented.  I believe too strongly in the inventiveness of mankind to
really trust /any/ anti-virus, no matter how well-touted.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
When Windows are opened the bugs come in.
	Winduhs