|
|
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 07:24PM Rob DeWitt (diggertadmin gmail com) (1 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 08:53PM David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (2 replies) RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:10PM Dixon, Wayne (wcdixo aurora lib il us) (2 replies) Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 10:16AM Radoslav Dejanoviæ (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr) (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 |
And can someone post a link?
-Bill Holmberg
-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed] [mailto:listbounce (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]]
On Behalf Of David Harley
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:54 PM
To: focus-apple (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
Subject: RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4
> 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.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the validity of that test, and
from
what I've seen of it so far, those assumptions are not justified.
--
David Harley
http://www.smallblue-greenworld.co.uk
[ reply ]