Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-19 Thread Arnaud Huret
Back to the original problem. Is Simon's answer the cause (only broken PE headers are detected not broken somewhere else executables)? Hopefully Arnaud will be able to catch one soon so we can clear up the mystery!. I catched two diffrent samples (NetSky.Y and Sober.gen) not catched by

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-19 Thread Simon
Arnaud Huret [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I catched two diffrent samples (NetSky.Y and Sober.gen) not catched by ClamAV but well by TrendMicro VirusWall. I submitted them through the site but I get a message saying 'already recognized'. What should I do to submit them to the team for further

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-19 Thread Simon
Arnaud Huret [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here you are. Many thanks, Arnaud Thanks for the samples Arnaud, they are both viable and run on my test kit - and they are both detected using ClamAV devel-20050413/840/Tue Apr 19 02:42:09 2005. mail.document.Datex-packed.exe: Worm.Sober.N FOUND

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-19 Thread Tomasz Kojm
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:44:45 +0200 (CEST) Arnaud Huret [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the original problem. Is Simon's answer the cause (only broken PE headers are detected not broken somewhere else executables)? Hopefully Arnaud will be able to catch one soon so we can clear up

[Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread René Berber
Arnaud Huret wrote: If detecting broken executables is the problem, then: [snip] #DisableDefaultScanOptions ## ## Executable files ## ScanPE DetectBrokenExecutables [snip] does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Tomasz Kojm
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:35 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or disable the other options; even if you have DetectBrokenExecutables uncommented the default value of disabled is

[Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread René Berber
Tomasz Kojm wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:35 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or disable the other options; even if you have DetectBrokenExecutables uncommented the default

[Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Owen
SNIP As we are experimenting ClamAV, we still maintain during evaluation period a second (and historic) defense line with TrendMicro VirusWall which we plan to abandon shortly. I observed that VirusWall (the second line defense) reported 8 hits on (SomeFool) Worm.Netsky.P .Y .and .W. I used to

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Jim Maul
René Berber wrote: Tomasz Kojm wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:35 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or disable the other options; even if you have DetectBrokenExecutables uncommented

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Tomasz Kojm
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:39:02 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tomasz Kojm wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:35 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or disable the

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Tomasz Kojm
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:22:31 +1000 Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used to get the same thing when I set up Clamav. I will point out that I run Clamav for Windows and call clamscan.exe, not clamdscan. I have a pretty low volume mail server so the overhead is ot a concern to me. The

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Stephen Gran
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:39:02PM -0500, René Berber said: Tomasz Kojm wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:35 -0500 René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does not enable detecting them. Why? because you have to uncomment DisableDefaultScanOptions to enable or disable the other options;

[Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread René Berber
Stephen Gran wrote: [snip] This option is by default disabled, and is not part of the set DefaultScanOptions. If you see Default: enabled, it is a member of the set. Does that make it more clear? So the OP has a correct configuration but his setup seems to not detect broken executables...

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Arnaud Huret
So the OP has a correct configuration but his setup seems to not detect broken executables... Back to the original problem. Is Simon's answer the cause (only broken PE headers are detected not broken somewhere else executables)? -- René Berber As the config seems to be OK (or at least

Re: [Clamav-users] Re: 0.83 potentially not catching some NetSky/SomeFool virus

2005-04-18 Thread Simon
René Berber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the OP has a correct configuration but his setup seems to not detect broken executables... Back to the original problem. Is Simon's answer the cause (only broken PE headers are detected not broken somewhere else executables)? It really depends on