Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-05 Thread Benny Pedersen
Joel Esler (jesler) skrev den 2017-05-05 01:39: We have some ideas here Benny, but nothing in the pipeline today. +1, thats stable software :) If we incorporated SaneSecurity’s sigs (we need permission to do so from Steve), then we could ingest them, and de-dupe any hash-based sigs that we ha

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Joel Esler (jesler)
We have some ideas here Benny, but nothing in the pipeline today. If we incorporated SaneSecurity’s sigs (we need permission to do so from Steve), then we could ingest them, and de-dupe any hash-based sigs that we have that other types of sigs alert on (we do this today for our own internal sig

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
Henrik K skrev den 2017-05-04 23:30: So we traded memory for equal disk. No surprise there, those bazillion hashes need their space. I guess someone should just serve them up in cloud somewhere like... Immunet? ^_^ and scan times is still the same ?, while load time is considred very fas

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Henrik K
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 08:36:00PM +0300, Henrik K wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > it's unacceptable having a clamd process which wastes nearly 1 GB of RAM > > hanging around when he don't catch anything > > For once I have to agree.. > > My stats:

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Bond Masuda
I have to agree on the memory requirements for clamd being high. I wonder if it would make sense to store the data set of signatures in a tiered hierarchy, with some of the less used data being on disk until there's a hit? i don't know enough about the internals and scanning algorithm used in c

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Henrik K
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > it's unacceptable having a clamd process which wastes nearly 1 GB of RAM > hanging around when he don't catch anything For once I have to agree.. My stats: ClamAV - 10 million sigs (includes most sanesecurity stuff) Sophos - 13 m

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Kris Deugau
Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: We already distribute some third party feeds into the official database, we have a program for that which can be found on our website. For my part I would far prefer an enhancement to freshclam to allow it to download arbitrary third-party signature sets, much as Sp

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Dennis Peterson
You make this harder than is necessary. Create a directory for your preferred signature files in it (/var/lib/crazyclam, for example), put your preferred signature files in it, create a new clamd config file (crazyclamd.conf, for example) with that directory defined (DatabaseDirectory /var/lib/c

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 04.05.2017 um 13:52 schrieb Joel Esler (jesler): We already distribute some third party feeds into the official database, we have a program for that which can be found on our website. We would love to incorporate Sanesecurity's feed, all they have to do is give us the okay to do it you

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 04.05.2017 um 13:39 schrieb crazy thinker: Please find below ClamAV performance statistics In our recent *ClamAV Detection rate test*…. Sanesecurity signatures :*97.11%* SecuriteInfo signatures (free) : 19.03% ClamAV Official only signatures: 13.82% Number of signatures: Sa

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Joel Esler (jesler)
3rd party signatures distributed by us, are signed. -- Sent from my iPhone > On May 4, 2017, at 08:27, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > Joel Esler (jesler) skrev den 2017-05-04 14:19: >> We'd have to evaluate which feeds would be appropriate for the ClamAV >> Db. The more coverage the better, with

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
Joel Esler (jesler) skrev den 2017-05-04 14:19: We'd have to evaluate which feeds would be appropriate for the ClamAV Db. The more coverage the better, with fewest false positives. agree, but i like to know if it will be opt out or opt in aswell, would it be considered to make all 3dr party s

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Joel Esler (jesler)
We'd have to evaluate which feeds would be appropriate for the ClamAV Db. The more coverage the better, with fewest false positives. -- Sent from my iPhone > On May 4, 2017, at 08:04, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > Joel Esler (jesler) skrev den 2017-05-04 13:52: >> We already distribute some thir

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
Joel Esler (jesler) skrev den 2017-05-04 13:52: We already distribute some third party feeds into the official database, we have a program for that which can be found on our website. +1 We would love to incorporate Sanesecurity's feed, all they have to do is give us the okay to do it. would

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
crazy thinker skrev den 2017-05-04 13:39: Sanesecurity signatures :*97.11%* SecuriteInfo signatures (free) : 19.03% ClamAV Official only signatures: 13.82% all this is not virus signature, so for me this does not count Number of signatures: Sanesecurity signatures : *249,766*

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Joel Esler (jesler)
We already distribute some third party feeds into the official database, we have a program for that which can be found on our website. We would love to incorporate Sanesecurity's feed, all they have to do is give us the okay to do it. -- Sent from my iPhone > On May 4, 2017, at 07:29, craz

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread crazy thinker
@Benny Pendersen Dude ... please find link in previous mail thread On 4 May 2017 at 17:10, crazy thinker wrote: > http://sanesecurity.com/ > > On 4 May 2017 at 17:09, crazy thinker wrote: > >> Please find below ClamAV performance statistics >> >> In our recent *ClamAV Detection rate test*…. >>

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread crazy thinker
http://sanesecurity.com/ On 4 May 2017 at 17:09, crazy thinker wrote: > Please find below ClamAV performance statistics > > In our recent *ClamAV Detection rate test*…. > > Sanesecurity signatures :*97.11%* > SecuriteInfo signatures (free) : 19.03% > ClamAV Official only signatures

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread crazy thinker
Please find below ClamAV performance statistics In our recent *ClamAV Detection rate test*…. Sanesecurity signatures :*97.11%* SecuriteInfo signatures (free) : 19.03% ClamAV Official only signatures: 13.82% Number of signatures: Sanesecurity signatures : *249,766* SecuriteInfo (f

Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
crazy thinker skrev den 2017-05-04 13:28: Hi ClamAV Developers, Users To my curiosity, i want to remove ClamAV Official Database and plan to integrate unofficial database with clamav engine.. i heard that Sanesecurity signatures increases ClamAV performance upto 90%.. where did you read tha

[clamav-users] ClamAV UnOfficial Database

2017-05-04 Thread crazy thinker
Hi ClamAV Developers, Users To my curiosity, i want to remove ClamAV Official Database and plan to integrate unofficial database with clamav engine.. i heard that Sanesecurity signatures increases ClamAV performance upto 90%.. so i am thinking that excluding ClamAV Official Database not afffe