Matthew Dettinger wrote:
On 9/8/06, tBB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that clamscan wants the files or directories passed to
> it via the command line, not via stdin-- besides which, Windows has a
> fairly limited max length for the command line.
Actually it's not that limited (b
Matthew Dettinger wrote:
> So ultimately clamscan.exe will not take stdin. I will just have to run it
> like you state above... multiple time! By reloading clamscan.exe in and out
> of memory for every file at which point am I better off just scanning the
> entire drive recursively?
Yes, Clam(D)S
On Sep 11, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Matthew Dettinger wrote:
So ultimately clamscan.exe will not take stdin. I will just have to
run it
like you state above... multiple time! By reloading clamscan.exe in
and out
of memory for every file at which point am I better off just
scanning the
entire drive
On 9/8/06, tBB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that clamscan wants the files or directories passed to
> it via the command line, not via stdin-- besides which, Windows has a
> fairly limited max length for the command line.
Actually it's not that limited (but still too limited for t
> The problem is that clamscan wants the files or directories passed to
> it via the command line, not via stdin-- besides which, Windows has a
> fairly limited max length for the command line.
Actually it's not that limited (but still too limited for this purpose I
guess). Windows XP/2k3 has a
On Sep 8, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
No. This -print0 option first appeared in GNU find before Linux
existed, as far as I can tell.
It was adopted into BSD versions of find around 1993 to 1995:
Seems not to work in Solaris.
Agreed-- Solaris and AIX are the two platforms I know
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> > Seems not to work in Solaris.
>
> As a Solaris fan -- you REALLY want to install gnu find, and grep, and
> fileutils. At least.
>
> Sun still for whatever reason doesn't support many newer options, newer
> being post 1989.
You can't imagin
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Seems not to work in Solaris.
As a Solaris fan -- you REALLY want to install gnu find, and grep, and
fileutils. At least.
Sun still for whatever reason doesn't support many newer options, newer
being post 1989.
>
> On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Thats why we have: find -print0 | xargs -0
> >
> > Assumes Linux?
>
> No. This -print0 option first appeared in GNU find before Linux
> existed, as far as I can tell.
> It was adopted into
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:25 AM, mcd wrote:
Sorry this is on a windows system. Can I just cat the file list and
pipe
it to the windows version of clamscan? I believe it takes stdin?
The problem is that clamscan wants the
On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:25 AM, mcd wrote:
Sorry this is on a windows system. Can I just cat the file list
and pipe
it to the windows version of clamscan? I believe it takes stdin?
The problem is that clamscan wants the files or directories passed to
it via the command line, not via stdin-
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thats why we have: find -print0 | xargs -0
Assumes Linux?
No. This -print0 option first appeared in GNU find before Linux
existed, as far as I can tell.
It was adopted into BSD versions of find a
On 9/8/06, Philip Ershler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:05:48AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hopefully the list is also properly escaped and or quoted. xargs
>>> is pretty
>>> unhappy with filenames that
On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:05:48AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Hopefully the list is also properly escaped and or quoted. xargs
is pretty
unhappy with filenames that have special characters in them, or
spaces. This is
true no matter h
>
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:05:48AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >
> > Hopefully the list is also properly escaped and or quoted. xargs is pretty
> > unhappy with filenames that have special characters in them, or spaces.
> > This is
> > true no matter how the list is submitted to the scann
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:05:48AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> Hopefully the list is also properly escaped and or quoted. xargs is pretty
> unhappy with filenames that have special characters in them, or spaces. This
> is
> true no matter how the list is submitted to the scanner. This is the
>
> At 10:11 AM 9/8/2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >Noel Jones wrote:
> >>cat big.list.of.files | xargs clamscan
> >
> >xargs is still limited by max line length, so this needs
> >to be done with care. Perl can also be used in place of
> >clamdscan to feed file names to clamd (which must be run
>xargs is still limited by max line length, so this needs to be done
>with care. Perl can also be used in place of clamdscan to feed file
>names to clamd (which must be run as root). The advantage of Perl is it
>can iterate over an array and of course manage all the logging.
Also, depending on
At 10:11 AM 9/8/2006, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
cat big.list.of.files | xargs clamscan
xargs is still limited by max line length, so this needs
to be done with care. Perl can also be used in place of
clamdscan to feed file names to clamd (which must be run
as root). The advan
Noel Jones wrote:
At 09:42 AM 9/8/2006, mcd wrote:
This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I
will be
running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then compare that
list of
md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know to be virus free. The
files
that do not h
> would I be better off calling clamscan to scan the entire disk, or call
clamscan 10,000+ times with unknown files?
I suppose a better wuestion would be:
How often do you want to scan these files?
The reason this becomes important is that if you are going to be doing this
overnight during server
At 09:42 AM 9/8/2006, mcd wrote:
This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a
little more. I will be
running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then
compare that list of
md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know to be
virus free. The files
that do not have valid md5sums i
On Fri, September 8, 2006 10:42 am, mcd said:
> This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I will
> be running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then compare that
> list of md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know to be virus free.
> The files that do not ha
mcd wrote:
> On 9/8/06, Barry Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > cat filename | xargs clamscan
>
> This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I
> will be running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then
> compare that list of md5sums against a list of md5sums t
mcd wrote:
This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I
will be
running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then compare that
list of
md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know to be virus free. The files
that do not have valid md5sums in the database will th
This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I will be
running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then compare that list of
md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know to be virus free. The files
that do not have valid md5sums in the database will then need to be
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, mcd wrote:
> Basically I want to continue on with what some of the people on this list
> were saying about using tripwire (or something similar) to just scan files
> on a system that have changed. I wouldn't want to call clamscan multiple
> times each with one file, but rather
mcd wrote:
Basically I want to continue on with what some of the people on this list
were saying about using tripwire (or something similar) to just scan files
on a system that have changed. I wouldn't want to call clamscan multiple
times each with one file, but rather call it once with a big lis
Or if you maintain a file with the filenames and paths that you want to
scan, you can use cat to output each line of that file to clamscan in the
same fashion.
cat filename | xargs clamscan
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
mcd wrote:
Basically I want to continue on with what some of the people on this list
were saying about using tripwire (or something similar) to just scan files
on a system that have changed. I wouldn't want to call clamscan multiple
times each with one file, but rather call it once with a big lis
find (options) | xargs clamscan
So to search all files in home
find /home/ |xargs clamscan
Or to scan only certain files of specified size (thanks to Noel Jones for
this one)
find / -type f -size N | xargs clamscan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] O
mcd wrote:
> Basically I want to continue on with what some of the people on this
> list were saying about using tripwire (or something similar) to just
> scan files on a system that have changed. I wouldn't want to call
> clamscan multiple times each with one file, but rather call it once
> with a
32 matches
Mail list logo
