|
Focus on Apple
ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 02:43PM Pfost William B (William Pfost ci irs gov) (4 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:28PM Todd Woodward (todd_woodward symantec com) (2 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 02:33AM Edward R Marczak (marczak radiotope com) (2 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 09:42AM David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (1 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 01:18PM Edward R Marczak (marczak radiotope com) (1 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 08:43PM Radoslav Dejanoviæ (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr) (1 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 13 2007 09:51PM Todd Woodward (todd_woodward symantec com) (1 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 10:09AM David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (1 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 06:50PM Roland Dobbins (rdobbins cisco com) (1 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 07:35PM Pfost William B (William Pfost ci irs gov) (1 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 08:09PM Rob DeWitt (diggertadmin gmail com) (2 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:22PM Kevin Finisterre \(lists\) (kf_lists digitalmunition com) (1 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
>
> Has anyone tried this application?
>
> Any comments to share? Would anyone recommend it versus another OS X antivirus
> application?
>
I installed it on OS X Server a couple of years ago, and found it to
be both effective and relatively light in the load it imposed. The
standard at NYU was Sophos, which was noticeably "heavy" on our older
Macs; considering that the only reason we were running antivirus was
to protect the Windows machines, that burden was widely resented by
the Mac users.
Test results posted this week say Clamav is one of only three products
that detected 100% of a suite of (known!) viruses. Given that these
were known threats, less than 100% performance seems unacceptable.
I currently run Clamav on my Linux servers by way of amavis-new, on
both inbound and outbound mail. Inbound, of course, to protect my
Windows-using clients; but outbound as well, to make sure that when
(not if...) one of those Windows-using clients gets infected, they do
not get my service blacklisted.
One possible negative is that Clamav exceeds its authority to the
extent of classifying "phish" as viruses; only recently has it been
possible to turn this off. Some of my peers were upset about it, as
they prefer to distinguish between "threats to machines" vs. "threats
to naive users."
[ reply ]