Re: [clamav-users] clamav-users@lists.clamav.net

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Doyle
Ah yes, that seems to have caused the hangup. The clamscan debug run went from 257 seconds to 25 seconds On 11/18/2016 02:07 PM, Steve basford wrote: > Remove javascript.ndb and retry... > > Cheers, > > Steve > Twitter: @sanesecurity > > > > On 18 Novemb

Re: [clamav-users] clamav-users@lists.clamav.net

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Doyle
> Steve > Twitter: @sanesecurity > > > > On 18 November 2016 21:39:09 Richard Doyle > wrote: > >> Last time I tried it with an empty list, and it still took 5 minutes for >> clamd to start. >> >> On 11/18/2016 01:25 PM, Steve basford wrot

Re: [clamav-users] 5 minutes to start

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Doyle
On 11/18/2016 01:32 PM, Anssi Johansson wrote: > 18.11.2016, 23.10, Richard Doyle kirjoitti: >> Yes, clamd on my system is taking about 5 minutes to start, which causes >> timeouts. This issue developed just this week. >> >> I found that setting >> >>

Re: [clamav-users] clamav-users@lists.clamav.net

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Doyle
Last time I tried it with an empty list, and it still took 5 minutes for clamd to start. On 11/18/2016 01:25 PM, Steve basford wrote: > Can you give me a list of 3rd party databases you are using > > Cheers, > > Steve > Twitter: @sanesecurity > > > > On 18

Re: [clamav-users] clamav-users@lists.clamav.net

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Doyle
Yes, clamd on my system is taking about 5 minutes to start, which causes timeouts. This issue developed just this week. I found that setting OfficialDatabaseOnly true helped considerebly--clamd loads in a few seconds. I'd really like to get back to using unofficial databases, but not right now.

Re: [clamav-users] [Fwd: securiteinfo problems]

2015-04-24 Thread Richard Doyle
On 04/24/2015 06:21 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 4/24/2015 6:29 AM, Cedric Knight wrote: >> 2) Is anyone else using the new SI system via freshclam willing to >> report on it? Thanks. > > I have been using it since it was announced in March. It seems to > work fine. > +1 _