James Brown wrote:
>
> On 16/04/2008, at 4:33 AM, fchan wrote:
>
>> This part of clamav-0.92 and new fix of a bug.
>> https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=613
>>
>> And in short we need to get gcc4.1.1 or newer to get this work on
>> Macintosh 10.4.11 and xcode 2.5 which only has an
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> James Brown wrote:
>>
> John Rudd wrote:
>> Oh, and, while we're on the subject, what about 0.88.6? is that
>> version
>> vulnerable? (don't tell me to upgrade -- I haven't been able to get
>> newer versions to compile on Mac
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> James Brown wrote:
>
John Rudd wrote:
> Oh, and, while we're on the subject, what about 0.88.6? is that
> version
> vulnerable? (don't tell me to upgrade -- I haven't been able to get
> newer versions to compile on Mac OS X 10.4.x)
>> Frank & John, I
James Brown wrote:
>
>>
>>> John Rudd wrote:
Oh, and, while we're on the subject, what about 0.88.6? is that
version
vulnerable? (don't tell me to upgrade -- I haven't been able to get
newer versions to compile on Mac OS X 10.4.x)
>
> Frank & John, I've used ./configure --e
On 16/04/2008, at 4:33 AM, fchan wrote:
This part of clamav-0.92 and new fix of a bug.
https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=613
And in short we need to get gcc4.1.1 or newer to get this work on
Macintosh 10.4.11 and xcode 2.5 which only has an gcc 4.0.1. However
Apple hasn't r
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
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
vulner
Roberto Ullfig wrote:
> 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
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
work
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
___
H
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
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
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
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
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, a
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, and all use
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, and all users are advise
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, and all users are advised to update to this r
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:01:10 -0400
"David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gerard wrote:
>
> > http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#clamav_pe_scanning_vulnerability
>
> Does ClamAV 0.93 fix this vulnerability? (When I saw the 0.93 release
> announcement, I wondered what security prob
Gerard wrote:
> http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#clamav_pe_scanning_vulnerability
Does ClamAV 0.93 fix this vulnerability? (When I saw the 0.93 release
announcement, I wondered what security problems were fixed this time...)
CERT, though, has to win the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot idioc
Any links to the real full report, all I found was "don't scan PE files" ?
Gerard wrote:
> I just received an alert from US-CERT regarding ClamAV. The full report
> is available here:
>
> http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#clamav_pe_scanning_vulnerability
>
>
> --
21 matches
Mail list logo
