Yeah, I'd like to second that Q. Many (all) of my freelance clients are stuck with McAfee or nothing or Norton. I'll set them up with FireFox and T-Bird and they send me flowers and candy. But I always tell them to spend the $72 or whatever for the established AV protection. I'm not so brazen as to force Debian, even on good friends. Ken Fuchs wrote: >[Please ignore the previous two posts - corrects the BitDefender URL again!] > >I would use or recommend ClamAV. > >However, <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1850851,00.asp> >placed ClamAV at dead last (detecting only 1 of 6 viruses) of >about eleven MS Windows anti-virus programs tested by AV-Test.org. > >Does anyone know about AV-Test.org? Do they conduct fair tests? >It looks like they get paid by others to perform the tests ... >Are they as independent as their web site declares they are? > >Of course, the PC Mag article tested anti-virus programs that run on >MS Windows rather than Linux, but it still bothers me that ClamAV >was ranked lowest out of ten competitors. > >The top ranked anti-virus program was BitDefender. The company >happens to have a freeware BitDefender for Linux: ><http://www.bitdefender.com/PRODUCT-63-en--BitDefender-Linux-Edition.html> >This is closed source with a free Linux license. Does anyone have an >opinion of BitDefender, Linux Edition? > >Sincerely, > >Ken Fuchs <kfuchs at winternet.com> > >_______________________________________________ >TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >tclug-list at mn-linux.org >http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > >