If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:
Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! You're better off using lists from places like Macworld if you really must slow down your Mac with anti-malware apps. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On Thu, 7 May 2020 10:57:31 +0100, David_B
wrote: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav No mention of the much cited (on some sites) Total either. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 08/05/2020 03:29, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2020 10:57:31 +0100, David_B wrote: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav No mention of the much cited (on some sites) Total either. Total doesn't have many 'followers' on Facebook either! ;-) https://www.facebook.com/totalavcom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. You're better off using lists from places like Macworld if you really must slow down your Mac with anti-malware apps. Thanks. What does Macworld have to say about ClamXav? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On Fri, 8 May 2020 11:16:44 +0100, David_B
wrote: redacted doesn't have many 'followers' on Facebook either! That's good. They probably prefer their users use their own site for support. More privacy all around. There was no need to include the name of a Mac STALKING_TARGET in the thread. You were asking about a generic Wiki article, and posted to a Windows group. A reminder for anyone that wants to reply to BD: ------------------------------------- BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to hide". I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request, rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!": https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php 65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes! Google "David Brooks Devon" []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
Jim H wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2020 10:57:31 +0100, in , David_B wrote: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav This is a list of claimed features, not an actual measure of reliable performance. It has it's uses when it comes to reducing the number of AVs to consider but I would never use this list to make a FINAL choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus "In the 2008 AV-Test, which compared ClamAV to other antivirus software, it rated: on-demand: very poor; false positives: poor; response time: very good; rootkits: very poor.[9] " Sorta like the "Bud Light" of beers. "Less filling", being its major attribute. I'm sure the ClamXav developer has turned the ship around, and that version has become a great light beer. We just need someone to test it (properly). On a Macintosh, how would you do that ? Can you run Sality on a Mac ? How ??? Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
Paul wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus Â* "In the 2008 AV-Test, which compared ClamAV to other Â*Â* antivirus software, it rated: Â*Â* on-demand:Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* very poor; Â*Â* false positives:Â* poor; Â*Â* response time:Â*Â*Â* very good; Â*Â* rootkits:Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* very poor.[9] Â* " Sorta like the "Bud Light" of beers. "Less filling", being its major attribute. I'm sure the ClamXav developer has turned the ship around, and that version has become a great light beer. We just need someone to test it (properly). On a Macintosh, how would you do that ? Can you run Sality on a Mac ? How ??? Let us not confuse the 'roles' and dev and 'ownership' of ClamAV, now owned by Cisco but still open and responsible for identification roles primarily as a mail server filtering tool with/vs that of ClamXAV which took the open source clamav engine and database and put a Mac GUI face on it to (try to) market to Mac OS desktop users. It has been a long time since clamav was compared to other engines at such as avcomparatives. This page at avcomparatives says they tested it in 2020 (the other years are empty) and/but that results aren't yet available. https://www.av-comparatives.org/prod...lam-antivirus/ The wp article indicates that clamav has a role, and that several developers have applied its engine to roles for Macs, including the clamxav which I believe is less popular as payware than it was as freeware. -- Mike Easter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you provide one? I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You should, of course, do likewise. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:19:38 +1200, Your Name
wrote: On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Take that with a pinch of salt. BD is a compulsive *LIAR*. He copies and pastes whatever paragraphs support his current criminal campaign. Notice how he didn't edit out the name of his current target, even though it is no longer the subject under discussion? Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I use it, but read the references and the "talk" too. It's usually pretty helpful. There are a lot of Wako pages too, just ignore them. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On Sat, 9 May 2020 00:18:08 +0100, David_B
wrote: On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you provide one? I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You should, of course, do likewise. Their climate change web site is a classic example. No matter what opinion is posted tere is always somebody who posts the contrary view. There is no room for the middle. Totally unreliable. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you provide one? I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You should, of course, do likewise. You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many people will already have read those errors believing they are actual true facts. There are also many errors that will go unreported because nobody reading those particular pages knows the real facts. It can be handy to double-check what you *already* know, but relying on it as a source of new information is plain idiotic. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 09/05/2020 01:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2020 00:18:08 +0100, David_B wrote: On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you provide one? I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You should, of course, do likewise. Their climate change web site is a classic example. No matter what opinion is posted tere is always somebody who posts the contrary view. There is no room for the middle. Totally unreliable. What action have you taken to improve matters on that site, Eric? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 09 May 2020, Your Name wrote
(in article ): On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said: On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said: On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote: On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?! I support Wikipedia financially each year. IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet. Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information. I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you provide one? I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You should, of course, do likewise. You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many people will already have read those errors believing they are actual true facts. There are also many errors that will go unreported because nobody reading those particular pages knows the real facts. It can be handy to double-check what you *already* know, but relying on it as a source of new information is plain idiotic. Well, he _is_ an idiot... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|