On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:55:17 +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 at 19:14:32 -0500, Tim B wrote:
Does this mean that 0.67 will now detect the the encrypted versions
regardless of password?
Yes.
But it's still usable only with full message scan?
--
Virgo Pärna
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 08:15, Virgo Pärna wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:55:17 +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 at 19:14:32 -0500, Tim B wrote:
Does this mean that 0.67 will now detect the the encrypted versions
regardless of password?
Yes.
But it's still
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 08:38:48 +, Trog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it'll match with just the encrypted zip file.
Right, disable-archive seems to do the magic...:)
--
Virgo Pärna
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This SF.Net email is
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:38:48AM +, Trog wrote:
| On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 08:15, Virgo Prna wrote:
| On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:55:17 +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
| On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 at 19:14:32 -0500, Tim B wrote:
|
| Does this mean that 0.67 will now detect the the encrypted versions
|
Diego d'Ambra wrote:
ClamAV databases updated (04-mar-2004 13:11 GMT): daily.cvd, viruses.db2
version: 165
Submission: n/a
Sender: Diego d'Ambra
Virus name: Worm.Bagle.Gen-zippwd
Notes: Generic signature to detect password-protected Bagle zip files
Notes: Signature by Trog
Added: Yes
Does this
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 at 19:14:32 -0500, Tim B wrote:
Diego d'Ambra wrote:
ClamAV databases updated (04-mar-2004 13:11 GMT): daily.cvd, viruses.db2
version: 165
Submission: n/a
Sender: Diego d'Ambra
Virus name: Worm.Bagle.Gen-zippwd
Notes: Generic signature to detect password-protected
