Hi there -
I was checking the logs of one of our servers, and I discovered the automated
freshclam process failed
to update the virus definitions. I checked on the mirror-problem page, and went
through the motions of
renaming the mirrors.dat file, and manually running the freshclam utility
Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote:
Hi there -
I was checking the logs of one of our servers, and I discovered the automated
freshclam process failed
to update the virus definitions. I checked on the mirror-problem page, and
went
through the motions of
renaming the mirrors.dat file, and
Dennis Peterson writes:
But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
email-borne viruses are way, way down: yesterday's logs from one of
our
rick pim wrote:
Dennis Peterson writes:
But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
email-borne viruses are way, way down: yesterday's
rick pim wrote:
Dennis Peterson writes:
But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
email-borne viruses are way, way down: yesterday's
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is, at best,
naive. And
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is,
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
Two minutes to hack a Mac and it's now available to generate spam and
become a drone to spread malware for other Macs or Windows systems.
It
Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote:
Hi there --
It appears the DNS server the server uses does not allow recursion.
Is it possible to configure the freshclam.conf file to connect via
the ip address of the database server, and if so what is the address
to use? Thanks.
You would be better off using
Hi there --
I spoke with our Information Security people, and I was able to
configure the system in question to resolve to a different set
of DNS servers. Once that was done, I reran freshclam, and this
time the update completed successfully.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:07:32 -0700
Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows,
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is,
Hi, I send a new trojan to the database maintainers a week ago and
still is not recognized by clamav, are database maintainers overloaded?
http://www.virustotal.com/es/analisis/7031b9020ce7bc0ed57215ed5ebf2f82
Regards.
___
Help us build a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:clamav-users-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luis Miguel R.
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:50 PM
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: [Clamav-users] virus database maintainer team overloaded?
Hi, I send a new trojan to the
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted into being a
John Rudd wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38:23PM -0700, Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
The idea that any platform
John Rudd wrote:
Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed that
is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matter are fairly
clear. We run mail
Joe Sloan wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed that
is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matter are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben wrote:
| I run clamd on a CentOS server, with freshclam, and clamsmtpd to scan
mail.
| And I use it interfacing with postfix.
| However, just clamd alone uses 23 Megabytes when idle!
|
| Can someone post configuration options to limit or lower
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:59:05 -0700
Joe Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed
that is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
While it's
Dennis Peterson wrote:
How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
information or in the message that identifies the source OS, hardware,
or MTA. Everything in a message can be spoofed as can the sending
system. The only thing you can be sure of is the IP you log
Quoting Joe Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matter are fairly
clear.
Are they?
We run mail servers that see tens of millions of messages monthly
on behalf of 15,000 users.
I run much smaller ones...
Out of the thousands of different viruses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P0f maybe? Although with my experience it has never been that accurate
and is easy to fool if one so desires.
We're using p0f integrated into Qmail-Scanner to track what OS is
associated with incoming SMTP connections.
Just to add some 'facts' to this discussion,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Just changing the subject to reflect the interesting discussion that
we have veered onto...
Jason, thanks for the statistics; I'm curious what other people are
seeing.
The nomenclature used (viruses, quarantine etc.) reflects (IMHO) the
Gerard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:59:05 -0700
Joe Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed
that is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
practice.
How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
information or in the
Jason Haar wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P0f maybe? Although with my experience it has never been that accurate
and is easy to fool if one so desires.
We're using p0f integrated into Qmail-Scanner to track what OS is
associated with incoming SMTP connections.
Just to add some
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:38:10 -0700
Joe Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
practice.
How are able to
Joe Sloan wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
practice.
How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
Dennis Peterson wrote:
I've had a feeling for several posts that we have not been having the
same conversation. I've never seen anything but Windows viruses in the
nearly 30 years I've been doing this but that's not what we're talking
about. We're talking about the probability that Windows
It may be just me, but I think this topic has been beaten to death :-\
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:01:10 -0400
David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe there has been a real Linux virus in the wild, and
I can't believe someone wouldn't have created one by now if it were
as easy as on Windoze. Heck, even MSFT has probably tried as part
of it's FUD
34 matches
Mail list logo
