Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Freeware Forum > Linux

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22. Oct 2009, 07:48 PM   #1 (permalink)
Site Manager
 
MidnightCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 15,179
Default Anti-Malware Scanners

I decided to start a separate thread for this because no matter what the need may or may not be for Linux scanners people will use them (including me) either for their own valid reasons or just because it makes them feel safer.

This especially since several of the big guns have applications available as well as dear old Clam.

Having been a severe critic of The Windows version of BitDefender I now admit to liking the Unices version a lot. It's giving no issues at all on my x64 Ubuntu 9.04 and scans quickly. I've opted to leave mine running in the background as I love the idea of just being able to drop files and folders onto the desktop drop icon for immediate scanning. Also, being a Windows nasties hunter if someone turns up with a pendrive while I'm booted into Linux I can still wack it in and scan it.

Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?
__________________
Buy a Hoover and prove technology sucks.
MidnightCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23. Oct 2009, 01:32 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
wdhpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The north Coast
Posts: 1,513
Default

Hello MC

E-Mail protection
I'm using thunderbird However Clam doesnt work with thunderbird. It appears AmaVisd (email scanner) works well with thunderbird.
AmaVisd works with clam and thunderbird, but AmaVisd wont install with bit defender running in the background.
Will Clam and Bit Defender work together?
Bit defender would not install with clam running in the background. However clam would install with bit defender running in the background.

LOL....see what you started

And top things off most of the free malware software is 32 bit and will not work on 64 bit linux platforms.

Quote:
Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?
Cheers
Wdhpr

Last edited by wdhpr; 23. Oct 2009 at 01:36 AM.
wdhpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23. Oct 2009, 01:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
Site Manager
 
MidnightCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 15,179
Default

Naturally I'm making some assumptions here because a lot of this is still new ground to me too but..... presumably the only worry about emails would be attachments and only then from a Windows perspective. With the drop box for BitDefender on the screen you could just drop any attachments into it. They scan instantantly. Whatever is in there (presumably) won't harm your Linux system but if found to be malware would prevent you from passing it on to other windows users.

Does any of this make sense, or am I getting it wrong?
__________________
Buy a Hoover and prove technology sucks.
MidnightCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23. Oct 2009, 01:53 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
wdhpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The north Coast
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
With the drop box for BitDefender on the screen you could just drop any attachments into it.
Easy to get wrapped around the axle. Your assumptions are correct. However I will continue to seek the automatic solution. "wink"

Cheers
Wdhpr
wdhpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28. Oct 2009, 10:29 AM   #5 (permalink)
Full Member
 
Matapan1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy View Post
I decided to start a separate thread for this because no matter what the need may or may not be for Linux scanners people will use them (including me) either for their own valid reasons or just because it makes them feel safer.

This especially since several of the big guns have applications available as well as dear old Clam.

Having been a severe critic of The Windows version of BitDefender I now admit to liking the Unices version a lot. It's giving no issues at all on my x64 Ubuntu 9.04 and scans quickly. I've opted to leave mine running in the background as I love the idea of just being able to drop files and folders onto the desktop drop icon for immediate scanning. Also, being a Windows nasties hunter if someone turns up with a pendrive while I'm booted into Linux I can still wack it in and scan it.

Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?
I have tried the following scanners only for on demand scanning:

- Rootkit Hunter
- ChkRootkit
- ClamAv
- Avast for Linux
- BitDefender for Unices


The first three are available in the repositories while the last two must be downloaded from the producers websites.

I'm not impressed by ClamAv while Rootkit Hunter and Chkrootkit are fast and targeting well identified malware.

Avast is fine but the signature update is not incremental and takes some time.
BitDefender (thanks MC!) works well and the GUI is nice. Update also is faster then Avast. If working on background, in my system it consumes about 125 mb of RAM and therefore I have disabled this option.
I have experienced with both Avast and BitDefender that several files can not be scanned because files system... and I don't know how to solve it.

I'm not concerned about malware in Linux and I use these scanners once a month or so on or to scan the Windows partition.

Regarding the firewall, I use UFW (and Gufw as GUI) which is very simple (like Windows XP firewall). I have also used Firestarter but I stopped because it takes about 50 mb RAM more than UFW and it's no longer developed.
Matapan1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28. Oct 2009, 10:47 AM   #6 (permalink)
Site Manager
 
MidnightCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 15,179
Default

Thanks for your personal insight into these things.

Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?

On my system memory use is not really an issue as I have 4G to play with and Ubuntu uses only a fraction of Vista anyway. I share your point about Firestarter but found the events window so much easier to use and read for reference purposes rather than having to delve into the system log. Maybe I should have spent more time with ufw, or am I missing an easier way to see active connections and blocked events with this one?
__________________
Buy a Hoover and prove technology sucks.
MidnightCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28. Oct 2009, 11:06 AM   #7 (permalink)
Full Member
 
Matapan1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy View Post
Thanks for your personal insight into these things.

Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?

On my system memory use is not really an issue as I have 4G to play with and Ubuntu uses only a fraction of Vista anyway. I share your point about Firestarter but found the events window so much easier to use and read for reference purposes rather than having to delve into the system log. Maybe I should have spent more time with ufw, or am I missing an easier way to see active connections and blocked events with this one?
Thanks for your comments!

The files are skipped during the full scan, I have not tried to drop them in the "drop icon".
Regarding Firestarter you are perfectly right, for me the only reason to use it is the log record. I have not found an easy way to look at the log in UFW, hopefully this point will be improved with the next releases.
Matapan1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30. Oct 2009, 01:44 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
wdhpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The north Coast
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?
I have not had this same experience. However I have noticed significant slow downs during the scan when bitdefender is scanning widows software being used with Wine. Outside of that all files are scanned.

Cheers
Wdhpr
wdhpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26. May 2010, 01:15 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
wdhpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The north Coast
Posts: 1,513
Default BitDefender for Linux can be registered for another year

For those of us that have bitdefender for linux installed and if your original registration has expired. You can renew it for free for another year.

You will have to register at the website and they will send you another key

I like the dropbox to check files that you have downloaded. You can also do a system scan.

Cheers
Wdhpr
wdhpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.