[clamav-users] R: Re: ClamAV for windows: GUI and chocolatey package

Mon Mar 6 20:38:55 UTC 2017

Hi,

>Windows.  Hmmm, I suppose you did say 'possible'. :)

You are right, but up to the moment in which the people continue to use this 
OS, I have not choice. I try to persuade them by highlighting the missing of 
care of user privacy, especially windows 10 that is spying machine https://www.
privacytools.io/.

>Perhaps it's just my age, but I'm no fan of "the cloud".  Having said
>that, the architecture makes a lot of sense in some applications, and
>I feel that real-time scanning of untrusted data, perhaps perversely,
>is probably one of them.  Most of us here will be familiar with DNSBL
>services.  I routinely use half a dozen of them myself.  However while
>it's one thing to offer service which supplies UDP query responses to
>all the mail servers on the planet, striving to do the something rather
>bigger over TCP for every (well, every Windows) computer on Earth is a
>very different proposition.
>
>For the sake of comparison, the DNSBLs I use vary in average response
>times from a little under 50ms to a little over 500ms.  But there are
>occasions at busy times when a response takes a few seconds, and this
>is for (a) client numbers which I guess will be less than one percent
>of client numbers seen by something serving the world's Windows boxes
>(b) one single UDP query per message as compared with perhaps several
>dozen TCP queries while loading a Web page full of assorted, and very
>possibly malicious, 'monetizing' frippery, and (c) mail.  It's just
>mail, and nobody cares if it takes a few seconds longer to get there.
>Well there is that one guy in Hastings, but anyway...
>
>You can see the sort of thing I see may be necessary (if even then not
>necessarily sufficient) to protect against a zero-day in 'Edge' if you
>must talk directly to the machines which are running it in real time.
>
>Will it scale?

I agree with this position and I prefer to avoid cloud based service whenever 
I have a local alternative.
So I will continue using clamWin together with clamSentinel even if the second 
is a little bit outdated.

Best Regards,
Salvatore

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: "G.W. Haywood" <clamav at jubileegroup.co.uk>
>Data: 05/03/2017 20.27
>A: <clamav-users at lists.clamav.net>
>Ogg: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV for windows: GUI and chocolatey package
>
>Hi there,
>
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2017, Joel Esler wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2017, at 05:46, Erotavlas_turbo wrote:
>> >
>> > whenever it is possible, I prefer to avoid using closed source and
>> > proprietary software... I would like to use it as standard AV for
>> > several cases including mail scanning, real-time file scanning,
>> > web protection ... several components for windows ...
>
>Windows.  Hmmm, I suppose you did say 'possible'. :)
>
>> > ... exist several proprietary solutions with freeware version
>> > based on clamAV (e.g. Immunet).
>> 
>> We make Immunet.  It combines a cloud based detection engine with
>> the offline capability of clamav.  It's extremely effective and free.
>
>Perhaps it's just my age, but I'm no fan of "the cloud".  Having said
>that, the architecture makes a lot of sense in some applications, and
>I feel that real-time scanning of untrusted data, perhaps perversely,
>is probably one of them.  Most of us here will be familiar with DNSBL
>services.  I routinely use half a dozen of them myself.  However while
>it's one thing to offer service which supplies UDP query responses to
>all the mail servers on the planet, striving to do the something rather
>bigger over TCP for every (well, every Windows) computer on Earth is a
>very different proposition.
>
>For the sake of comparison, the DNSBLs I use vary in average response
>times from a little under 50ms to a little over 500ms.  But there are
>occasions at busy times when a response takes a few seconds, and this
>is for (a) client numbers which I guess will be less than one percent
>of client numbers seen by something serving the world's Windows boxes
>(b) one single UDP query per message as compared with perhaps several
>dozen TCP queries while loading a Web page full of assorted, and very
>possibly malicious, 'monetizing' frippery, and (c) mail.  It's just
>mail, and nobody cares if it takes a few seconds longer to get there.
>Well there is that one guy in Hastings, but anyway...
>
>You can see the sort of thing I see may be necessary (if even then not
>necessarily sufficient) to protect against a zero-day in 'Edge' if you
>must talk directly to the machines which are running it in real time.
>
>Will it scale?
>
>-- 
>
>73,
>Ged.
>_______________________________________________
>clamav-users mailing list
>clamav-users at lists.clamav.net
>http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
>
>
>Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
>https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
>
>http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
>