Anti-Virus Software ?
John Thompson
JohnThompson at new.rr.com
Fri Oct 8 19:32:02 UTC 2004
Temlakos wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 12:22, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 11:10, Jonathan Allen wrote:
>>
>>>What anti-virus software would you recommend for running on an FC2
>>>machine ? There are no windows machines in the network, only Linux
>>>workstations, also all running FC2.
>>
>> You already are: it's called FC2. :> The only reason you'd need to
>>run AV programs is to protect Windows boxes.
>>
>> Enjoy!
> I'm sure that's comforting--for now. And we all hope that Linux is
> inherently more secure against viruses of all types. Maybe we're right.
> But as more people get fed up with "WinDoze" or "Window$" or however you
> want to spell it, what will happen when cyber-terrorists start attacking
> Linux directly with virus operations? That's what some of my clients are
> asking me right now. What do I tell them?
There seems to be an unfounded notion that the only reason linux doesn't
have any notable viruses is because of the small market share, and from
that that the number of viruses for a given platform is roughly
proportional to its market share. So under this "logic" Windows having
95+% of the desktop market can be expected to suffer 95+% of the
exploits. If this were true, however, we would expect that in markets
where Windows has less penetration -- e.g. internet severs, where
Windows servers comprise ~40% of the market -- that Windows should only
suffer ~40% of the exploits in this arena. That is not what we see,
however: even with ~40% of the internet server market, Windows still
suffers ~95% of the significant exploits. One can conclude from this
that Windows is inherently less secure than other platforms.
--
-John (john at os2.dhs.org)
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list