On 13 Mar 2005 21:03:00 +0100 Rainer Zocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](Tomasz Kojm) 13.03.05 20:05 > > >On 12 Mar 2005 14:33:00 +0100 > >Rainer Zocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > >> But i wonder how clamscan could scan 100GB on a 40GB partition: > >> > >> # df /home/ftp > >> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > >> /dev/ataraid/d0p10 39412652 35180136 4232516 90% /home/ftp > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression > > Wow, if you haven't said that ;-) > > I meant that clamav states something in its summary i can't verify. > (See above my concers to truncate the bytes scaned to "mio" bytes) > > But I can easiliy count how many "real files" are there and > too determine how big they all are. > > And if clamscan did find another count, something is wrong. > (Using "LVM snapshots" there no change during the entire scan) > > The problem i know several virusscanners had have: They gave > up recursion somewhere to early, maybe because of a "..." file > or directories with unicode or control or '\0' characters, or > simply because the recursion was too deep and the paths buffers > too short or the wrong way to "cd" was used or a bug in the operating > system function they used.. ??? -- oo ..... Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (\/)\......... http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..........._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Sun Mar 13 21:28:51 CET 2005
pgpromQw32yrq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
