Antivirus solutions

[alextovey-p40]

i have serval installed on home computers first one for my laptop and wife is kaspersky and the home server and dns server i use avg as that is nice and light then i use avg for the fedora and ubuntu servers i have running,

I do suggest using fedora or ubuntu as they are great and if you want to run windows programs with in linux use a program called Wine ive used it for ages now and get a good running from them.

[eeyore-p40]

I do a lot of work with computer software and use macs and pc's with Linux and Windows on a daily basis. If there's one thing I can tell you it's that simply changing your operating system will not eliminate viruses. As much as I like Linux, there is absolutely no reason I have ever found that makes it any more secure than other OS's (out of the box, customized is naturally a different story). Obviously a smaller user group (as with Macs as well) make it a much smaller target. However, remember, the servers that you hear about being hacked in the news are often running some verion of Linux Server OS, so Linux does get hacked too. I like Linux just as much as the next guy, but please don't be fooled into believing it's invincible.

Dispite common opinion, Windows and OS X are very well done Operating Systems, even Vista. There's always room for improvement, but you have to remember all code has bugs. Keep your system up-to-date, put a good AV on it, and be smart in you usage and you'll drastically reduce your risks. I've never had a virus on my Windows machine (running XP), and that's more than 6 years of operation.

As for what virus scanner to use, I would just say this. You can read 10 different articles on which one is the best and get 10 different answers. The biggest thing I look for is how often they update their definitions. That's the biggest key for me, and last I check that was Kasp. You have to expect that your computer is going to slow down with any AV. Viruses are getting extremely complicated and it's getting harder and harder to detect them, especially with the advent of Virtualization. This being the case, you're going to get slow downs (especially with the ridiculous reluctance to develop software to utilize multiple CPUs). You've just got to get past that. If it slows you down too much, it might be time to upgrade. Probably not what people want to think about in today's economy, but that's technology.

All this being said, and knowing full well some of you might not agree, you've got to decide for yourself what to use. But the key things to look for, IMO, are the frequency of updates, turn around for updates (how long it takes them to release a detection for new viruses), and then performance hit. Obviously cost is a factor, and cheap/free is nice, but you have to judge what the cost is of losing data by going with junk software verses the price of higher grade software.

Just my $.02. Feel free to ignore if you don't like it.

[rmrichesjr]

...

Just my $.02. Feel free to ignore if you don't like it.

Okay. As many of your assertions are inconsistent with my experience and learning, I'll ignore them.

(Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion, not acting in any official capacity.)

[aebrown]

If there's one thing I can tell you it's that simply changing your operating system will not eliminate viruses.
...
Keep your system up-to-date, put a good AV on it, and be smart in you usage and you'll drastically reduce your risks.
...
But the key things to look for, IMO, are the frequency of updates, turn around for updates, and then performance hit.

Thanks for sharing your insights. It's always good to reexamine our assumptions regarding virus protection -- regardless of what may have been reasonable thinking a few years ago, we need to keep our technology current to stay ahead of the innovations by the bad guys. You've given us some good food for thought.

[kennethjorgensen]

Just my $.02. Feel free to ignore if you don't like it.

Not at all, I thought it was very well put.

I feel a similar thing is happening on the Firefox v IE front. Every time FF came out then IE would get slaughtered but when FF3 came out and promised huge increase in loading time it felt very "flat" to realise it was only milliseconds. The no 1 reason I use FF is because of add-on's and that slows it right down so reality v theory are 2 different things. And funny enough the emergence of the latest IE version and its better security and faster millisecond loading time than FF has not received the same amount of attention online and in the media.

Its a shame when some product fans try to "overstate" their claims. They simply loose credibility and trust which is a real shame when they do have some great products on their side.

[clarkkent93-p40]

I've been using Avast for the last few years and have been amazed at what it finds compared to Norton. #1 feature: free!

[rmrichesjr]

(Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not acting in any official capacity.)

I had earlier thought it best to not post any detail lest it be seen as arguing. However, I think it is important that two facts be stated on the topic of security of different operating systems.

First, if I am informed correctly, there is not one single virus in the wild that affects Linux. There may be exploits against specific applications but not an actual virus against the OS itself.

Second, the antivirus software available for Linux has only one purpose, to remove Windows viruses from email messages going through.

[marianomarini]

Obviously a smaller user group (as with Macs as well) make it a much smaller target. However, remember, the servers that you hear about being hacked in the news are often running some verion of Linux Server OS, so Linux does get hacked too. I like Linux just as much as the next guy, but please don't be fooled into believing it's invincible.

Linux is not invincible because we leave in a FUZZY (not bivalent) world. So "everything is a matter of quantity".
How many server run Linux? How many windows? How many Linux servers fail under attack, and how many windows servers does?
Your resoning could be rigth for desktop market (could be) but my question is: Why no one try a porting of viruses? If they work for Windows, and Windows is almost the same of Linux, why sould be so difficult to port it?

Dispite common opinion, Windows and OS X are very well done Operating Systems, even Vista. There's always room for improvement, but you have to remember all code has bugs. Keep your system up-to-date, put a good AV on it, and be smart in you usage and you'll drastically reduce your risks. I've never had a virus on my Windows machine (running XP), and that's more than 6 years of operation.

I don't know very well OS X story, but Windows! The great improvement went with Linux success (Win 98 -> Win XP).

All this being said, and knowing full well some of you might not agree, you've got to decide for yourself what to use. But the key things to look for, IMO, are the frequency of updates, turn around for updates

OS too!
There is a fact that show the big difference between Ms an nix worlds: Microsoft sale an Antivirus but none of Linux distro.

Just my $.02. Feel free to ignore if you don't like it.

The same for my notes

[eeyore-p40]

(Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not acting in any official capacity.)

I had earlier thought it best to not post any detail lest it be seen as arguing. However, I think it is important that two facts be stated on the topic of security of different operating systems.

Expressing one's opinion is not arguing. I think we should each be able to express our point-of-view and feelings on a matter without feeling that the other person is being disrespectful. I had no problem with your original post. Everyone's mileage varies!

First, if I am informed correctly, there is not one single virus in the wild that affects Linux. There may be exploits against specific applications but not an actual virus against the OS itself.

I don't know of any current viruses, but I know of several past viruses. The issue with viruses on a Linux machine is small due to the use of standard and root users. Since viruses can only run at the same level as the user who runs them, viruses on the Linux side are difficult, but not impossible, to write and be effective.

That being said, nearly the exact same thing can be done and set up on a Windows XP machine. If you want a virtually virus free windows computer, create an Administrator account that you only use to install software and make major changes to the system. Run all your applications and everyday stuff through a limited account. By simply doing that, you'll eliminate 95-99% of all possible scenarios in which a virus may be installed on your computer. Combine that with a fully patched OS and up-to-date AV software and you're set. You're obviously still susceptible to some viruses, but you've dramatically reduced the number.

This is why I feel switching OS's isn't all that necessary. With XP running in this fashion, I don't see Linux being all that much safer, but again, that's just me.

Second, the antivirus software available for Linux has only one purpose, to remove Windows viruses from email messages going through.

I'd disagree that it has only one purpose, but due to the use of Linux in server applications, it certainly is used to scan emails and such destined for Windows machines. There are A/V programs out there that do much more than that, such as ClamAV and Panda.

Now, all that being said, I am well aware of the fact that Linux does not suffer from a very big virus problem. The majority of Linux issues come with hacking, not viruses. Again, it's all proportions. Windows has a much larger share in the home and personal computing sectors, so it's a much larger target for viruses and malware. Linux, on the other hand, has a much larger share in the enterprise and networking sectors, so it suffers from hacking attacks. The problem with the hacking is that if you've been hacked, they have root access and your entire computer is at their mercy. To me, that's a little more scary than a virus that just slows things down.

So, Windows vs. Linux, who knows. IMO, use whatever you want, but realize either is only as safe as you make it. Besides, I only own Macs, so what do I really know?

[eeyore-p40]

Not at all, I thought it was very well put.

I feel a similar thing is happening on the Firefox v IE front. Every time FF came out then IE would get slaughtered but when FF3 came out and promised huge increase in loading time it felt very "flat" to realise it was only milliseconds. The no 1 reason I use FF is because of add-on's and that slows it right down so reality v theory are 2 different things. And funny enough the emergence of the latest IE version and its better security and faster millisecond loading time than FF has not received the same amount of attention online and in the media.

Its a shame when some product fans try to "overstate" their claims. They simply loose credibility and trust which is a real shame when they do have some great products on their side.

Yeah, the browser war is certainly becoming interesting. With the advent and increasing popularity of netbooks, it will become even more interesting. I'm just waiting for a browser called "patience". We probably all need a little of that when it comes to our computers.