On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, technomage wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > On Friday 24 January 2003 09:32 pm, you wrote: > > This last post could easily be misinterpreted > > because of some vague and ambiguous statements. > > The simple truth is that unless you are a system > > administrator running a linux based mail-server > > gateway to a network of M$-Windoze machines, and > > know exactly why you are running antivirus software > > on your linux mail-server, you are wasting your > > time running anti-virus software, period. > is it? Perhaps some clarification is appropriate here: what generally goes under the name of a "virus scanner" in the linux world is just email gateway filtering for M$-Win specific virii, to block out problems for that kind of client network. If I remember right, the original poster was asking about where to get such, and I thought that that it was just the normal newbie carry-over of MS-Windoze thinking. Useful security strategy for linux, in the context of the original query, is generally of a different nature, and goes under other names. I was trying to redirect that individual to more appropriate and useful security information sources, without taking us into an off topic security discussion, which I have no desire to carry. > > There are, for any practical purpose, no true viruses > > for linux (the few that have been demonstrated are > > mostly theoretical, because they can't reproduce well > > enough to be a practical threat). > I regret to inform you that this statement is false. > there are, in fact 12 virii and 37 variants therein > for various distributions of linux. I should know, I > have had to trubleshoot a few linux boxes that did, > in fact, have virus infections. I suspect that this claim is based on a terminological misunderstanding, as would be indicated by you further comments below? At any rate, regardless of whether you are talking about virii, trojan horses, or other vulnerablities, the numbers above are bogus, probably based on some poorly researched press reports several months ago. LWN.net published some followup reports that gave a much truer picture, actually producing far higher numbers, but showing why the numbers are misleading in any event. But a discussion of the details are off topic: please take any discussion of this nature to a more appropriate forum, as I suggested before -- I'm not interested in a debate. What follows is just repeated quotes, for reference. LCR > > Subscribe to your distribution's announce mailing list, > > and keep up with the free security updates that they > > post about, so that you will not have vulnerabilities > > on your system to non-virus network attacks and > > exploits (the type of bugs that show up on all > > operating systems). But don't worry about self > > replicating and propagating viruses, email or > > otherwise. > good advice. as it is, self-replicating virii are > very rare for linux os bases anyway (I believe there > is one). as for email scripts, etc, its never a bad > idea to scan for them. > > in any case, never assume because an OS is open > source, that it is safe from incursions (intended or > otherwise). -- L. C. Robinson reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and instability instead. This is award winning "innovation". Find out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see "CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html