On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:28:45 +0800
zamri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please read http://www.clamav.net/bugs.html#pagestart so that you can
submit the bugreport (with the sample).
I have submitted the virus file to clamav team. Look for submission id
556773. clamav team should test the file
On 11/18/06, Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 at 14:59:24 +0800, zamri wrote:
On 11/16/06, Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 at 11:33:23 +0800, zamri wrote:
That file was detected as worm for clamav 0.88.5. I think this is
sufficient
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 at 11:33:23 +0800, zamri wrote:
That file was detected as worm for clamav 0.88.5. I think this is
sufficient to prove that 0.90rc2 was not able to detect it and I
presume 0.90rc2 virus db wasn't updated simultaneously as 0.88.5/6.
There are no separated versions of virus
On 11/16/06, Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 at 11:33:23 +0800, zamri wrote:
That file was detected as worm for clamav 0.88.5. I think this is
sufficient to prove that 0.90rc2 was not able to detect it and I
presume 0.90rc2 virus db wasn't updated simultaneously
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 11:33 +0800, zamri wrote:
Is it the difference in scanning
engine or low in priority than stable one (0.88.6)?
In fact the opposite is true. So if you feel you have found a bug,
submit it.
___
On 11/11/06, zamri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/11/06, Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can confirm this virus is not found with either 0.90.0RC1.1 nor with
0.90.rc2
on Sun Solaris 9 Sparc. It works fine with 0.90rc2 on Sol 10 on Intel. A
report looks like this:
$
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, zamri wrote:
I assume the answer is yes. :)
No, it probably means you didn't provide any of the information that was
asked for -- what it found, your platform and OS, etc.
Your premise that rc.2 isn't updated is wrong. There may be a language
barrier causing this, but it
On 11/14/06, Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, zamri wrote:
I assume the answer is yes. :)
No, it probably means you didn't provide any of the information that was
asked for -- what it found, your platform and OS, etc.
Your premise that rc.2 isn't updated
Hi all,
I use clamav 0.90rc2 and my friend uses clamav 0.88.5 (the latest
stable). Just now, after I ran freshclam, i run clamdscan for a worm.
His could detect it as worm and mine didn't. Why is that?
___
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, zamri wrote:
I use clamav 0.90rc2 and my friend uses clamav 0.88.5 (the latest
stable). Just now, after I ran freshclam, i run clamdscan for a worm.
His could detect it as worm and mine didn't. Why is that?
It would be helpful to state what platform and what worm.
IE, I
On Fri, November 10, 2006 08:57, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, zamri wrote:
I use clamav 0.90rc2 and my friend uses clamav 0.88.5 (the latest
stable). Just now, after I ran freshclam, i run clamdscan for a worm. His
could detect it as worm and mine didn't. Why is that?
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ken Jones wrote:
https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89
Access Denied
You are not authorized to access bug #89.
I think the clam Bugzilla require you to have an account and be logged in to
watch bugs.
On Fri, November 10, 2006 09:33, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ken Jones wrote:
https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89
Access Denied
You are not authorized to access bug #89.
I think the clam Bugzilla require you to have an account and be logged in to
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ken Jones wrote:
I do have an account I even have open reported bugs that I am working on
with the developers :) (ok, I've reported and they are trying to fix)
Look man, I just use the bugzulla. I don't want to have to understand
how it works.
Ducks for cover . . .
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ken Jones wrote:
I do have an account I even have open reported bugs that I am working on
with the developers :) (ok, I've reported and they are trying to fix)
Look man, I just use the bugzulla. I don't want to have to understand
how
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
He scores!
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.
I get the same login error, btw, and since I use Solaris exclusively, I'm
interested.
Look like it's been clasified as a security bug, so I'll let the devel
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
Look like it's been clasified as a security bug, so I'll let the devel
people say what if anything they want to on the list.
That was due to the malicious sample attached.
The bug report itself should now be viewable.
-aCaB
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
He scores!
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.
I get the same login error, btw, and since I use Solaris exclusively, I'm
interested.
Look like it's been clasified as a security bug, so I'll let
I can confirm this virus is not found with either 0.90.0RC1.1 nor with
0.90.rc2
on Sun Solaris 9 Sparc. It works fine with 0.90rc2 on Sol 10 on Intel. A
report looks like this:
$ clamdscan -v strategy1.mbox
/tmp/strategy1.mbox: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Infected
On 11/11/06, Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can confirm this virus is not found with either 0.90.0RC1.1 nor with
0.90.rc2
on Sun Solaris 9 Sparc. It works fine with 0.90rc2 on Sol 10 on Intel. A
report looks like this:
$ clamdscan -v strategy1.mbox
/tmp/strategy1.mbox: OK
20 matches
Mail list logo
