What have I done wrong?
Mogens
Why not just make a source install?
I use clamav for several years on many Red Hat based distros and never had
any problems compiling and installing the vanilla clamav source, including
0.93...
Just a suggestion...
---
Ventsyslav
Ventsyslav Vassilev wrote:
What have I done wrong?
Mogens
Why not just make a source install?
With the rpm installation I get the right
files in /etc/init.d for starting the dæmons
at boot time.
It's just easier this way.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg A/S, Computer Department
Gamle
With the rpm installation I get the right
files in /etc/init.d for starting the dæmons
at boot time.
Duh!
You are kidding, aren't you ;-)
It's just easier this way.
Mogens
--
The init scripts are ready to use within the contrib/init directory of the
source install...
It's just a
Brian Morrison wrote:
OK, I'll do that if I can't resolve it.
I've checked that there are no old libclamav* files anywhere, they are
only in /usr/lib/, I've also checked that ld.so.conf is sane, and indeed
it is the only relevant paths are /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib in that order.
I'm
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM, fchan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you Edwin! That worked.
Frank
Similar issue here when upgrading (MacPorts install)
Removing old libclam* stuff from /opt/local/lib fixed it.
Patrick Sneyers
Belgium
___
Help us
The cat of Mogens Kjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# rpm -Uvh clamav-db-0.93-1.rf.i386.rpm clamav-0.93-1.rf.i386.rpm
clamd-0.93-1.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libclamunrar_iface.so.3 is needed by clamav-0.93-1.rf.i386
The build process creates a libclamunrar_iface.so.4
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
OK, I'll do that if I can't resolve it.
I've checked that there are no old libclamav* files anywhere, they are
only in /usr/lib/, I've also checked that ld.so.conf is sane, and indeed
it is the only relevant paths are
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
OK, I'll do that if I can't resolve it.
I've checked that there are no old libclamav* files anywhere, they are
only in /usr/lib/, I've also checked that ld.so.conf is sane, and indeed
it is the only relevant paths are /usr/lib and
Burnie wrote:
...
On some older RH-like systems (RHEL3 and such), building it
with rpmbuild somehow requires/links in the older library.
(the actual problem may have occured earlier, but 0.92.1 uses
*.so.3 anyway)
I built the rpms on another centos 5.1 machine where
clamav isn't installed.
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
OK, I'll do that if I can't resolve it.
I've checked that there are no old libclamav* files anywhere, they are
only in /usr/lib/, I've also checked that ld.so.conf is sane, and indeed
Nigel Horne wrote:
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
A vulnerability was identified by Secunia in 0.92.1 relating to the
PE module.
We immediately disabled this module about a month ago. Since then we
have been
working on, and produced, a fix which is included in 0.93. 0.93 is
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
A vulnerability was identified by Secunia in 0.92.1 relating to the PE
module.
We immediately disabled this module about a month ago. Since then we
have been
working on, and produced, a fix which is included in 0.93. 0.93 is due
for release
very soon,
Török Edwin wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
OK, I'll do that if I can't resolve it.
I've checked that there are no old libclamav* files anywhere, they are
only in /usr/lib/, I've also checked that ld.so.conf
Nigel Horne wrote:
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
A vulnerability was identified by Secunia in 0.92.1 relating to the
PE module.
We immediately disabled this module about a month ago. Since then we
have been
working on, and produced, a fix which is included in 0.93. 0.93 is
John Rudd wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
A vulnerability was identified by Secunia in 0.92.1 relating to the
PE module.
We immediately disabled this module about a month ago. Since then we
have been
working on, and produced, a fix which is included in
Am 15.04.2008 um 14:58 schrieb Roberto Ullfig:
By disabling the module do you mean to say that 0.92.1 is not
vulnerable? Why does CERT say otherwise?
I think the CERT simply doesn't know about the dconf feature in ClamAV
- furthermore they only repeat what they heard. You can't blame them
Am 15.04.2008 um 15:28 schrieb John Rudd:
So, are 0.92.1 users temporarily safe due to the [freshclam?] update
which turned off the module? Or not?
Yes, you are safe from this vulnerability if you run 0.92.1
--
Best regards,
Christoph
___
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
# lsof | grep clamd
clamd 26158 smmsp cwd DIR8,1 4096 2 /
clamd 26158 smmsp rtd DIR8,1 4096 2 /
clamd 26158 smmsp txt REG8,1 160362 455644
/usr/local/sbin/clamd
clamd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Morrison wrote:
| On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0300
| Török Edwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Brian Morrison wrote:
| Török Edwin wrote:
|
| Brian Morrison wrote:
|
| I've just built and installed 0.93, when the new versions try and
George R. Kasica wrote:
We have the same issue. I'd take a guess that it's because we're running
zlib-1.2.1.2-1.2 which is the latest offered by RHEL 4.
Ditto error here with zlib 1.2.3 and I've made sure there are no
duplicate zlibs out here:
the only one out here is
This is the latest news from US-CERT regarding ClamAV:
Multiple ClamAV Vulnerabilities
Original release date: April 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Last revised: April 15, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Clam AntiVirus has released ClamAV 0.93 to address multiple
vulnerabilities. Two of these vulnerabilities are due
If you have problems compiling clamav-0.92 and
newer is because of gcc bug PR28045 and below is
the line from my previous configure error:
checking for gcc bug PR28045... configure: error:
your compiler has gcc PR28045 bug, use a
different compiler, see
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:02:15 +
Bob Cobb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
help
Over the years, I have witnessed some incredibly stupid posts; however,
this one may qualify as the best.
1) No subject
2) No logs
3) No version numbers
4) No explanation of what it is the poster wants help with
At
Gerard wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:02:15 +
Bob Cobb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
help
Over the years, I have witnessed some incredibly stupid posts; however,
this one may qualify as the best.
1) No subject
2) No logs
3) No version numbers
4) No explanation of what it is the poster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Kosin wrote:
| Brian Morrison wrote:
| | On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0300
| | Török Edwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| |
| | Brian Morrison wrote:
| | Török Edwin wrote:
| |
| | Brian Morrison wrote:
| |
| | I've just built and
I too am facing this problem and we have zlib 1.2.3 on RHEL4
Making all in freshclam
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/clamav-0.93/freshclam'
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o freshclam output.o
cfgparser.o getopt.o misc.o options.o sha256.o cdiff.o tar.o freshclam.o
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:59:27 -0400
James Kosin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I think I have a clue.
| For some reason, clamav is linking against the old version of
| libclamunrar_iface.so.3 file. I'll try uninstalling the old version of
| clamav and try rebuilding fresh to see if that makes a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Morrison wrote:
| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:59:27 -0400
| James Kosin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| | I think I have a clue.
| | For some reason, clamav is linking against the old version of
| | libclamunrar_iface.so.3 file. I'll try uninstalling
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:52:01 -0400
James Kosin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| | James
| Well, that did the trick.
| I un-installed the old version before building and that fixed the
| dependency issue.
|
| Yes, I have now had to do the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Holdoway wrote:
| Having just been spending quite some time writing .spec files, it
could be because rpm -U actually runs the uninstall script of the
superseeded package ( with $1 set to a different value to if you're
running -e ) as a part
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:47:57 -0700
Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gerard wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:02:15 +
Bob Cobb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
help
Over the years, I have witnessed some incredibly stupid posts;
however, this one may qualify as the best.
1) No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 14.04.2008 16:30 schrieb Michael Brown:
The | character is not allowed in any e-mail address because it's a Unix
shell reserved character.
RFC 2822 disagrees with you. To begin with, there's no reason reserved
characters of any Unix shell or
Your dissecting my personal experience which makes all your points,
while valid, moot for my experience. :-)
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 14.04.2008 16:30 schrieb Michael Brown:
The | character is not allowed in any e-mail address because it's
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
So why am I dissecting that list like this? Just to show that blocking
or not blocking certain unusal characters in mail addresses is indeed a
policy decision which should not be forced by a piece of software, but at
most offered as a configurable option.
Absolutely
Gerard wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:47:57 -0700
Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least they did not top post. Then again, they did not really
have an opportunity to do so.
It is a command normally sent to the list server (requesting help
about the list) but which frequently ends
Good Morning,
I'm sorry for my bad english. Today I compiled the rel 0.93
in my system, a linux server. As usual I got the these errors in compiling
manager.c: In function `clamav_unpack':
manager.c:483: warning: passing arg 2 of `execv' from incompatible pointer type
manager.c:485:
Lanfranco Fabriani wrote:
Good Morning,
I'm sorry for my bad english. Today I compiled the rel 0.93
in my system, a linux server. As usual I got the these errors in compiling
manager.c: In function `clamav_unpack':
manager.c:483: warning: passing arg 2 of `execv' from incompatible
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stephen Gran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:22:56PM +0200, Bas van Rooijen said:
postfix would accept all three forms even
and why not ??
I assume you haven't looked at sendmail's security record.
I, for one, have made it a point to not
38 matches
Mail list logo
