basic - continued

[Odd]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> 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.

Well, sure. If it could do that, it would have to be able to see into
the future. But a heuristic scanner stops malware based on the
behavior of that malware. It's far from perfect, though.

> I believe too strongly in the inventiveness of mankind to
> really trust /any/ anti-virus, no matter how well-touted.

I'm with you on that.

-- 
Odd