Julio Canto wrote:
Bill Randle wrote:
Dave P wrote:
Are there any independent tests out there that do not
paint such a bleak picture? Are there any plans to
submit ClamAV or ClamWin to Virus Bulletin?
[...]
I think a better test is side-by-side comparisons with standard,
commercial, products. If
sam wun wrote:
Hi, how do you make ClamAV update virus database as soon as possible
when the signature becomes ready?
Sam.
Polling frequently the online versions. This subject were allready
discussed in the list some months ago.
--
Regards,
Julio Canto
Hispasec Sistemas
* sam wun [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20041021 03:43]: wrote:
Dear Clamav experts,
I just have a fresh clamav installed in FreeBSD 5.3 system.
I have a hard time to allocate the signature database in the system.
The following commandline have been using for update the signature:
clamav 15245
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
* sam wun [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20041021 03:43]: wrote:
Dear Clamav experts,
I just have a fresh clamav installed in FreeBSD 5.3 system.
I have a hard time to allocate the signature database in the system.
The following commandline have been using for update
Keep up the good work guys - ClamAV is superb!!!
This means QS will continue support ClamAV, right. :D
Thx Rgds,
Awie
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
On 10/21/2004 1:21 AM +0200, Dave P wrote:
I am trying to convince my company to switch to open
source where possible. It is much easier if the
software has been evaluated by an independent group.
Unfortunately, reviews that I could find, including
GMX Systematic and Heise magazines, were
Hi
Niek wrote:
On 10/21/2004 1:21 AM +0200, Dave P wrote:
I am trying to convince my company to switch to open
source where possible. It is much easier if the
software has been evaluated by an independent group.
Unfortunately, reviews that I could find, including
GMX Systematic and Heise
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:38:49AM +0200, Bogusaw Brandys wrote:
Right.Put ClamAV on front and commercial scanner on back ;-)
ClamAV do not recognize many polymorphic malwares, but today there are
not so many such malwares ;-)
Too right - that describes exactly how Qmail-Scanner utilizes
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 16:33, Grant Supp wrote:
It seems to happen when scanning the same files. Untitled Attachment seems to
cause the problem evey time. I think this attachment might be generated by Outlook
2003 when assigning a task to a user, although I'm not sure, since I don't have a
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 20:25, Rob Dueckman wrote:
I'm running mimedefang/spamassassin/clamav on an IRIX 6.5 machine and
have found that some files cause both clamd and clamscan to core.
Since I'm still running this combo, I can't forward the message to the
list, but it can be found at:
; On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 16:33, Grant Supp wrote:
;
; It seems to happen when scanning the same files. Untitled Attachment seems to
cause the problem evey time. I think this attachment might be generated by Outlook
2003 when assigning a task to a user, although I'm not sure, since I don't have a
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Trog
$ gdb clamscan
(gdb) run /path/to/message.txt
(wait for seg fault)
(gdb) bt
Before doing that it would help to rebuild from source using the -g
option.
-trog
-Nigel
___
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:01:46 + (UTC), Virgo Pärna wrote:
dragon:~/soft/clamav clamscan -r -i --no-summary clamav-0.80.tar.gz
clamav-0.80.tar.gz: Exploit.JPEG.Comment.E9 FOUND
I forget to to post immediatly - it didn'd happen anymore on
Tuesday. So, the updated signatures fixed it.
Hello all,
I tested my clamd version 0.80-1 which I use on my mail server
with manipulated zip files as I read some warnings in some news
regarding this issue.
Clamd didn't find the virus in a zip file where the zip file
information is manipulated. The global information in this zip
file
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:37:09 +0200
Alexander Harkenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clamd didn't find the virus in a zip file where the zip file
information is manipulated. The global information in this zip
file about the size of the file was set to 0 Byte.
We are aware of the problem and are
Hii have a small problems with the 0.80 version ... he don't want
start correctly..I have:6616
? S
0:00 \_ supervise clamd6707
? Z
0:00 | \_ [run] defunct6617
? S
0:00 \_ supervise log6618
? S
0:00 \_ /usr/bin/multilog t s100 n20
/var/log/clamav6706 ?
S 0:00 /usr/sbin/clamd
Why
In trying to compile .80 on SUSE 9.0 Pro AMD64, I get two errors. In
the archives I noticed someone with the same problem back in April but
he never solved it.
The first error is 'make' complains about libgmp. I do have libgmp in
/lib64 but not in /lib. I assume I should be able to compile
Hello,
Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
signatures ?
Today was for example submission of
HTML.Phishing.Auction-1
HTML.Phishing.Auction-2
HTML.Phishing.Bank-5
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:48, Bogusaw Brandys wrote:
Hello,
Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
signatures ?
Well, it depends what the signature is for.
Today was for example
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:23:35 +0100
Trog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Occasionally you'll see sigs like Worm.Bagle.AG.2, which may be a
second signature to match a different instance of the same malware.
For example re-packed with a packer we don't support at the moment.
--
oo.
Trog wrote:
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:48, Bogusaw Brandys wrote:
Hello,
Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
signatures ?
Well, it depends what the signature is for.
Today was for example
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Bogus³aw Brandys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
malware.
So it is harmless ?
Well, that depends on an intelligence of a
On Thursday 21 October 2004 08:25 am, Forexys Support Center wrote:
Hi
i have a small problems with the 0.80 version ... he don't want start
correctly..
I have:
6616 ?S 0:00 \_ supervise clamd
6707 ?Z 0:00 | \_ [run] defunct
6617 ?S 0:00 \_
On Thursday 21 October 2004 09:46 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Bogus³aw Brandys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
malware.
So it is
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Thursday 21 October 2004 09:46 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Bogusaw Brandys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
malware.
So it
Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
6/5/24m without any issues.
The ./configure results are attached.
The make and make install went fine.
When running /usr/local/bin/freshclam I see
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 16:09, Bogusaw Brandys wrote:
I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
differences , to stop submit just junk emails? Or it is accepted ?
No. Definitely not.
I get over 200
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:09:20 +0200
Bogus³aw Brandys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
No, we all have billions of them.
--
oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:01:23 -0500
Dale Bohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
6/5/24m without any issues.
0.75 is no longer supported. Please try to
On Thursday 21 October 2004 10:09 am, Bogusaw Brandys wrote:
I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
differences , to stop submit just junk emails? Or it is accepted ?
Hi, how do you make ClamAV update virus database as soon as possible
when the signature becomes ready?
Sam.
[Mitch (bitblock)]
Sam. Bad toad! Don't hijack threads.
You can run freshclam - there is no such thing as an instant update - the
latest version uses DNS records to allow more
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
Hi, how do you make ClamAV update virus database as soon as possible
when the signature becomes ready?
Sam.
[Mitch (bitblock)]
Sam. Bad toad! Don't hijack threads.
You can run freshclam - there is no such thing as an instant
update - the
latest version uses DNS
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:01:23 -0500
Dale Bohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
6/5/24m without any issues.
0.75 is no longer supported.
Uggg... I've pulled the latest gdb down and built it. It builds OK,
but it won't work properly (complains with the message warning: Signal
? does not exist on this system. and just sits spinning)
SGI's dbx isn't much help either (and I really don't know how to use it
:-)
I think I'll have to
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Rob Dueckman wrote:
I'm running mimedefang/spamassassin/clamav on an IRIX 6.5 machine and
have found that some files cause both clamd and clamscan to core.
Since I'm still running this combo, I can't forward the message to the
list, but it can be found at:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:28:58 -0500
Dale Bohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/hsm/terabyte: OK
/home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/hsm/archiving: OK
/home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/uit/home_links_reasons: OK
LibClamAV Error: Can't create temporary file : No such file or
directory Memory
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
I'm not a developer but this looks similar to what I'm seeing on Solaris.
Is readdir_r in use here ? (grep READDIR_R clamav-config.h)
Can you post the dirent struct from your /usr/include/sys/dirent.h file ?
Otherwise the following command should give enough:
find
Are there any independent tests out there that do not paint such a bleak
picture? Are there any plans to submit ClamAV or ClamWin to Virus
Bulletin?
Want stats? We employ clam, uvscan (McAfee/NAI) and bdc. Clam is much
faster because of clamd so it is first. Here is the breakdown in order
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:21:47 +0100, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Boyer wrote:
Downloading daily.cvd [*]
ERROR: Verification: Broken or not a CVD file
Giving up...
I went to rc4 last night in the hope that it would be fixed, but I'm
getting the same error.
This is answered in the
39 matches
Mail list logo
