MD5 has been discredited (found insecure) a long time ago. Putting out *new* signatures with SHA256 shouldn't be all that hard. And just like some new sigs needing a recent version of ClamAV because of their content, SHA-signed sigs could demand a new ClamAV version.
As far as a being a security issue, forged sigs could cause denial of service via false positives. (And I imagine there could even be actively malicious bytecode.) P.S. Mozilla is even providing SHA512 sigs for Firefox (ESR, at least). On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 04:27:42 -0700 Al Varnell <alvarn...@mac.com> wrote: > I'm struggling to understand how that would improve the DB? It's not > a security issue and it would seemingly involve a ton of work to run > all those samples again just to get a larger number which would > require additional time to download and space to store the DB as well > as in RAM. > > -Al- > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:12 AM, Vijayakumar U wrote: > > Dear Team, > > > > Do we have any plans to maintain/update the signature DB with > > sha256sum? > > > > Is there any specific reason to maintain the signatures in md5sum > > format? > > > > Please clarify. _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
