Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 22.04.2010 06:20, Dennis Peterson wrote: Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who they need to inform. And recall too, this: Filling their logs with warnings didn't work. Posting the notice on the front page of their website didn't work. Running commentary in this list didn't work. Announcing it in their Announcements list didn't work. Every major software project hits this road block sooner or later and solves it in an acceptable way. This is not rocket science. I am pretty sure some way of versioning support was on the table during the decision making process and was rejected. Knowing the rationale behind it would be nice. I think it was a bad decision but knowing how the decision was made (the other side of the argument so to speak) would help. [...] We're left with this: The problem affected only those that did not pay adequate attention. There is no cure for that. Our problem statements differ. I am against clamav's right to turn off services on other people's computers which does not say anything on sysadmins who may or may not be paying attention. So here's a message to everyone that was surprised: PAY ATTENTION because there's going to be a next time! I hope not. -- Eray ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Dennis Peterson wrote: I believe that best practice with this sort of thing is to only issue warnings and not to actually force a potentially harmful change without *express* consent of the user. Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who they need to inform. And recall too, this: Filling their logs with warnings didn't work. Posting the notice on the front page of their website didn't work. Running commentary in this list didn't work. Announcing it in their Announcements list didn't work. You don't know a way, they don't know a way, and I know for a fact it cannot be done If you start with the pre-requisite that you must stop old versions working then you are correct. Remove that pre-requisite and you are not. More than one suggestion has been made of how the team could have just moved on and left the old versions behind - without having to kill them. These suggestions have been rubbished for various (mostly false) reasons. People keep saying it's the user/admin's fault, that the user/admin should take all the blame, and that the user/admin should suffer the consequences. Fair enough - how this for a really odd idea - why not just stop providing AV updates to the older versions, and let the users/admins take the responsibility and consequences if they continue to ignore the warnings that updates have stopped working. If they ignore things aren't working errors then I'd agree with you - let them deal with it. I don't agree with the argument that things are not optimal is a warning to upgrade before things go bang. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Eray Aslan wrote: On 22.04.2010 06:20, Dennis Peterson wrote: Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who they need to inform. And recall too, this: Filling their logs with warnings didn't work. Posting the notice on the front page of their website didn't work. Running commentary in this list didn't work. Announcing it in their Announcements list didn't work. Every major software project hits this road block sooner or later and solves it in an acceptable way. This is not rocket science. I am pretty sure some way of versioning support was on the table during the decision making process and was rejected. Knowing the rationale behind it would be nice. I think it was a bad decision but knowing how the decision was made (the other side of the argument so to speak) would help. [...] We're left with this: The problem affected only those that did not pay adequate attention. There is no cure for that. Our problem statements differ. I am against clamav's right to turn off services on other people's computers which does not say anything on sysadmins who may or may not be paying attention. So here's a message to everyone that was surprised: PAY ATTENTION because there's going to be a next time! I hope not. If you bothered to read this entire thread you would understand that ClamAV did no such thing. In a couple of weeks these very same systems would have failed when the new signature format went into affect. The issue is that without code changes to 0.95 installations the new signatures will crash Clamd by design of 0.95 versions. This was built into the versions NOT as a method of breaking clamd but as preventing loading of what this version considers malformed databases. They are not guilty of intentionally turn off services but of not WASTING their money to protect users who want to continue to use EOL software. Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, lists wrote: Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not matter if the product is free. Oh come on. If I tell you you'll get wet when if you go out in the rain without an umbrella, is that blackmail ? Old versions of Clam crashed on certain input. You were told when that input was comming. It's sounding like the Clam team would have been better off releaseing a too-large signature and going Whoops, I guess old versions can't handle this. You better upgrade, sorry ! By warning people and releaseing a known-bad signature with a message, somehow it's their fault now. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Christopher X. Candreva wrote: Oh come on. If I tell you you'll get wet when if you go out in the rain without an umbrella, is that blackmail ? OK, so if I tell you that if you keep on going out without an umbrella, then I'll throw a bucket of acid over you ... then by your argument that's not blackmail, and by other arguments, it's perfectly OK because I warned you in advance. That wouldn't be assault, it wouldn't be a criminal act - it would be all your fault for ignoring the warning I gave. And by the way, I won't tell you directly, I'll put a notice up in my front window that you may or may not walk past and may or may not see. Old versions of Clam crashed on certain input. You were told when that input was comming. It's sounding like the Clam team would have been better off releaseing a too-large signature and going Whoops, I guess old versions can't handle this. You better upgrade, sorry ! By warning people and releaseing a known-bad signature with a message, somehow it's their fault now. No, it's not all their fault. But they sure did handle it badly. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 21.04.2010 17:50, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, lists wrote: Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not matter if the product is free. Oh come on. If I tell you you'll get wet when if you go out in the rain without an umbrella, is that blackmail ? Old versions of Clam crashed on certain input. You were told when that input was comming. Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal. Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. -- Eray ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eray Aslan wrote: Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal. But that's not what happened. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
At 12:12 -0400 21/4/10, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal. But that's not what happened. Wierd idea of did not happen - in what way does we will push an update that has the sole purpose of making your software stop working NOT constitute Knowingly disabling running software ? - It is a simple fact - the team made the decision to push this update. - It is a simple fact that the purpose of this update was to make running software break. - It is a simple fact that this was a desired outcome of the update. These are simple facts supported by their statement that they were going to do this, and what the expected outcome was going to be. Given these simple facts, I really, really cannot understand the mindset that still claims that the ClamAV team did NOT knowingly disable software running on other people's machines. Could someone please explain how on earth you can still claim that this didn't happen - and by what logic process you arrive at such a statement ? The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fetched. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Simon Hobson wrote: - It is a simple fact that the purpose of this update was to make running software break. I disagree with that statement because it's incomplete.. The purpose of this update was to make running software break WITH A DESCRIPTIVE ERROR . Important difference. The alternative being breaking with an incomprehensable hex ump. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Quoting Simon Hobson li...@thehobsons.co.uk: At 12:12 -0400 21/4/10, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal. But that's not what happened. Yes, it is what happened... People are just confused because of all the bogus complaints like they shutdown my server or they shutdown my email. But they did indeed shutdown clamd for some set of older versions. The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fetched. Well, since you pull the updates (they are not pushed to you), and since while this one signature was indeed different in purpose than the normal, you have a point. But, this different in purpose signature was just a way of warning that soon the same in purpose signatures _would_ stop the software. Would you rather they just started pushing the normal in purpose signatures that crashed it, or that they pushed a different in purpose one first, where the purpose was to notify users of both the issue, and how to fix it? -- Simon Hobson -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Eric Rostetter wrote: Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal. But that's not what happened. Yes, it is what happened... People are just confused because of all the bogus complaints like they shutdown my server or they shutdown my email. But they did indeed shutdown clamd for some set of older versions. I'm confused - are you saying they did, or didn't shut down software that people were running on their servers ? I think you are admitting (thank you) that the update did what it was supposed to do and remotely stopped some versions of ClamAV from running. The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fetched. Well, since you pull the updates (they are not pushed to you), and since while this one signature was indeed different in purpose than the normal, you have a point. But, this different in purpose signature was just a way of warning that soon the same in purpose signatures _would_ stop the software. Would you rather they just started pushing the normal in purpose signatures that crashed it, or that they pushed a different in purpose one first, where the purpose was to notify users of both the issue, and how to fix it? They didn't HAVE to push either to the older software - I'm not the first to point out that there was a completely viable alternative that would just stop supplying updates to the older software. So my preference would be simply that they did nothing to my software. If they want to stop supporting it with updates, that's fine and it still leaves me in control of what I run and when I update it. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Simon-- After ~20+ postings from you on this topic, you're not saying anything new. Unlike the poor folks running McAfee on Windows who are having their machines rendered unbootable due to a false positive with v5958 of their database, it would require far less effort on your part to either update ClamAV to a non-obsolete version, or to revert to using ClamAV antivirus definitions from 2010-4-14 and continue to operate your outdated ClamAV installation(s) for as long as you want. If you don't choose to accept ClamAV's update policies, by all means, use something else, or feel free to actually do some useful sanity checking by reviewing automated virus updates obtained from freshclam before deploying them to systems that you care about. My assessment is that there is no chance whatsoever that you will persuade Sourcefire/ClamAV team to provide separate signatures and update servers for obsolete versions, but there is nothing preventing you from doing that yourself if you like. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Quoting Simon Hobson li...@thehobsons.co.uk: I'm confused - are you saying they did, or didn't shut down software that people were running on their servers ? I've always supported the claim that they did this. And I've always countered the claims of the like of shutdown my server or shutdown my email or such. I think you are admitting (thank you) that the update did what it was supposed to do and remotely stopped some versions of ClamAV from running. No, I'm saying the update did shutdown clamav installs older than 0.95. I'm not saying that was what it was supposed to do, that is a matter of intent of the people at sourcefire, and I have no access to their intent. As such, I could only offer my opinion, and not admit to their intent. They didn't HAVE to push either to the older software - I'm not the They didn't PUSH anything to the older software. The users PULLED the signatures with their older version of the software. first to point out that there was a completely viable alternative that would just stop supplying updates to the older software. And this is not the first time I'll point out that your suggestions came after the fact. And this is not the first time I'll point out they asked for feedback and ideas for 6 months and AFAIK didn't get any such suggestions (maybe they did, and maybe they ignored them, I don't know... But they sure were not discussed on the mailing list or elsewhere in an effort to gain support and change the minds of clamav/sourcefire). So my preference would be simply that they did nothing to my software. Mine too. But what does my preference matter to them? That is up to them to decide, not me. If they want to stop supporting it with updates, that's fine and it still leaves me in control of what I run and when I update it. True. And a perfectly legitimate stance to hold. But that doesn't mean sourcefire/clamav has to respect that stance... -- Simon Hobson -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Christopher X. Candreva wrote: I disagree with that statement because it's incomplete.. The purpose of this update was to make running software break WITH A DESCRIPTIVE ERROR . Important difference. The alternative being breaking with an incomprehensable hex ump I think that's sums it up... that, to me, seemed like the ONLY aim. I even contacted ISC the day before and gave them a reminder: http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8635rss I did see an interesting idea on the devel mailing list from David I have a feature suggestion: Incorporate the version number in your DNS TXT records and download URLs. Your download mirrors can use symlinks in most cases (when versions are completely compatible) and you can easily stop older machines from attempting to download by stopping updates on the 0.96.whatever.clamav.net TXT record. Source: http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20100408.011105.c584f530.en.html Would this idea help minimise any future issues like this? Cheers, Steve Sanesecurity ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 21:19 +0100, Steve Basford wrote: I did see an interesting idea on the devel mailing list from David I have a feature suggestion: Incorporate the version number in your DNS TXT records and download URLs. Your download mirrors can use symlinks in most cases (when versions are completely compatible) and you can easily stop older machines from attempting to download by stopping updates on the 0.96.whatever.clamav.net TXT record. Source: http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20100408.011105.c584f530.en.html Would this idea help minimise any future issues like this? It was pointed out even before that suggestion was made that 0.95 and later have a versioning system inside the signature DB which allows clam to selectively load only parts of the DB. New incompatible signature types can be created and 0.95 can be told to ignore them. -- Chris ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Eray Aslan wrote: Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a counterclaim for a frivolous lawsuit. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a counterclaim for a frivolous lawsuit. ___ And I hope you do file a frivolous lawsuit and lose your shirt in court and lawyer fees. Lawyers will only be too happy to take your money for your lost cause. Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote: Jim Preston wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a counterclaim for a frivolous lawsuit. ___ And I hope you do file a frivolous lawsuit and lose your shirt in court and lawyer fees. Lawyers will only be too happy to take your money for your lost cause. Ahhh but it wouldn't be a civil case; it'd be a criminal case. The prosecution would be the crown or government. And would still be a monumental waste of your tax revenue, but what the heck, it's your money Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Jim Preston wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote: Jim Preston wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a counterclaim for a frivolous lawsuit. ___ And I hope you do file a frivolous lawsuit and lose your shirt in court and lawyer fees. Lawyers will only be too happy to take your money for your lost cause. Ahhh but it wouldn't be a civil case; it'd be a criminal case. The prosecution would be the crown or government. And would still be a monumental waste of your tax revenue, but what the heck, it's your money If there is the slightest chance that a legal precedent could be set that would deter the likes of Apple or Sony disabling functionality in consumer devices by remote control I would be ALL for spending tax money on this. And I would have thought that virtually anyone in the FOSS community would have agreed. Excuse me for my error. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Steve Wray wrote: Jim Preston wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote: Jim Preston wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place for it. Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a counterclaim for a frivolous lawsuit. ___ And I hope you do file a frivolous lawsuit and lose your shirt in court and lawyer fees. Lawyers will only be too happy to take your money for your lost cause. Ahhh but it wouldn't be a civil case; it'd be a criminal case. The prosecution would be the crown or government. And would still be a monumental waste of your tax revenue, but what the heck, it's your money If there is the slightest chance that a legal precedent could be set that would deter the likes of Apple or Sony disabling functionality in consumer devices by remote control I would be ALL for spending tax money on this. And I would have thought that virtually anyone in the FOSS community would have agreed. Excuse me for my error. In the case of Apple or Sony disabling consumer devices, I agree, have the crown start litigation against those companies if that is your goal. Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Simon Hobson wrote: The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fetched. Well, it's not the only defense that I can think of. For exactly how long had this message appeared before the ClamAV engine actually died? LibClamAV Warning: LibClamAV Warning: *** This version of the ClamAV engine is outdated. *** LibClamAV Warning: *** DON’T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq *** LibClamAV Warning: * ... they're called idiot lights for a reason and are disregarded at the user's peril. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
Robert Wyatt wrote: Simon Hobson wrote: The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fetched. Well, it's not the only defense that I can think of. For exactly how long had this message appeared before the ClamAV engine actually died? LibClamAV Warning: LibClamAV Warning: *** This version of the ClamAV engine is outdated. *** LibClamAV Warning: *** DON’T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq *** LibClamAV Warning: * ... they're called idiot lights for a reason and are disregarded at the user's peril. I believe that best practice with this sort of thing is to only issue warnings and not to actually force a potentially harmful change without *express* consent of the user. Ie: NOT passive or implicit consent. Making potentially harmful changes based only on passive or implicit consent is.. well 'inconsiderate' is about as mild a phrase as I care to use. -- Please remember that an email is just like a postcard; it is not confidential nor private nor secure and can be read by many other people than the intended recipient. A postcard can be read by anyone at the mail sorting office and expecting what is written on it to be private and secret is not realistic. Please hold no higher expectation of email. If you need to send confidential information in an email you need to use encryption. PGP is Pretty good for this. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 4/21/10 8:03 PM, Steve Wray wrote: I believe that best practice with this sort of thing is to only issue warnings and not to actually force a potentially harmful change without *express* consent of the user. Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who they need to inform. And recall too, this: Filling their logs with warnings didn't work. Posting the notice on the front page of their website didn't work. Running commentary in this list didn't work. Announcing it in their Announcements list didn't work. You don't know a way, they don't know a way, and I know for a fact it cannot be done, and the reasons why have been listed and the results show that despite adequate notification, some people failed to heed. They have to explain this inadequacy to management. It must have been a long day for them. I'm over it. What the team did worked for me, but I pay attention - it's my job. And you know something? It really wasn't difficult. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to deal with a ClamAV upgrade and less time to discover one is necessary. We're left with this: The problem affected only those that did not pay adequate attention. There is no cure for that. So here's a message to everyone that was surprised: PAY ATTENTION because there's going to be a next time! dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 4/21/10 8:20 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote: know way of knowing What the hell? Did I write that? :) dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
I can't believe this thread. This is like biting the hand that feeds. I upgrade Clam every time there's a new release. Across 20+ servers. Maybe the guys who are complaining should get into this habit too. It's just good practice if you want a secure antivirus solution. Do you think they are improving and extending the product for their own health? No. It's for the users. Stop being so lazy. On 4/21/10 8:03 PM, Steve Wray wrote: I believe that best practice with this sort of thing is to only issue warnings and not to actually force a potentially harmful change without *express* consent of the user. Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who they need to inform. And recall too, this: Filling their logs with warnings didn't work. Posting the notice on the front page of their website didn't work. Running commentary in this list didn't work. Announcing it in their Announcements list didn't work. You don't know a way, they don't know a way, and I know for a fact it cannot be done, and the reasons why have been listed and the results show that despite adequate notification, some people failed to heed. They have to explain this inadequacy to management. It must have been a long day for them. I'm over it. What the team did worked for me, but I pay attention - it's my job. And you know something? It really wasn't difficult. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to deal with a ClamAV upgrade and less time to discover one is necessary. We're left with this: The problem affected only those that did not pay adequate attention. There is no cure for that. So here's a message to everyone that was surprised: PAY ATTENTION because there's going to be a next time! dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 22.4.2010 6:03, Steve Wray wrote: Robert Wyatt wrote: Simon Hobson wrote: Well, it's not the only defense that I can think of. For exactly how long had this message appeared before the ClamAV engine actually died? LibClamAV Warning: LibClamAV Warning: *** This version of the ClamAV engine is outdated. *** LibClamAV Warning: *** DON’T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq *** LibClamAV Warning: * ... they're called idiot lights for a reason and are disregarded at the user's peril. I believe that best practice with this sort of thing is to only issue warnings and not to actually force a potentially harmful change without *express* consent of the user. Ie: NOT passive or implicit consent. Making potentially harmful changes based only on passive or implicit consent is.. well 'inconsiderate' is about as mild a phrase as I care to use. Yeah. well, but what's this? Temporary I hope ClamAV update process started at Thu Apr 22 07:09:06 2010 WARNING: Your ClamAV installation is OUTDATED! WARNING: Local version: 0.95.3 Recommended version: 0.96 DON'T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq main.cld is up to date (version: 52, sigs: 704727, f-level: 44, builder: sven) WARNING: getpatch: Can't download daily-10781.cdiff from database.clamav.net WARNING: getpatch: Can't download daily-10781.cdiff from database.clamav.net WARNING: getpatch: Can't download daily-10781.cdiff from database.clamav.net WARNING: getpatch: Can't download daily-10781.cdiff from database.clamav.net ERROR: getpatch: Can't download daily-10781.cdiff from database.clamav.net WARNING: Incremental update failed, trying to download daily.cvd ERROR: Can't download daily.cvd from database.clamav.net Giving up on database.clamav.net... Update failed. Your network may be down or none of the mirrors listed in /etc/clamav/freshclam.conf is working. Check http://www.clamav.net/support/mirror-problem for possible reasons. -- http://www.iki.fi/jarif/ You have many friends and very few living enemies. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] Clubbing a deceased equine
On 22.04.2010 06:44, Conrad Zane (Via Webmail) wrote: I can't believe this thread. This is like biting the hand that feeds. I upgrade Clam every time there's a new release. Across 20+ servers. Maybe the guys who are complaining should get into this habit too. You are missing the point. I did not get bitten by this. I am complaining because it is the principle that bothers me. Knowingly turning off services on other people's computers is an immoral, unethical, selfish and arragont act which is hopefully illegal some parts of the world. This is just not acceptable behaviour. -- Eray ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
