Re: [Clamav-devel] enabling DMG and XAR support
Sorry Mark, I’ll actually take my discussion with Dale offline so we don’t pollute the thread. I think Steve Morgan is working with you on the issue you started this thread with. Sounds like my discussion with Dale is a separate issue. On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Mark Allan wrote: > Sorry, I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Dale. If you're talking to > me, my testing was done two days ago using ClamAV 0.98.1 > > Mark > > On 21 Mar 2014, at 13:16, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: > >> DMG support was just added in the last version of ClamAV. How long ago did >> you do this testing? >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Dale Walsh wrote: >> >>> You did miss it but it's a two headed nail. >>> >>> PDF, DMG, XAR and RAR have had issues not recognizing the test viruses to >>> name just a couple that spring to mind that we've had trouble with and this >>> all started happening when the clang and crap entered the picture. >>> >>> I've worked with the developers in the past, once the build environment >>> dependancies changed and I was told I had to upgrade my OS and build tools >>> is when it was no longer possible to resolve these issues as the update >>> solely for the purpose of building ClamAV is not an option and I shouldn't >>> be forced to use someone else's built tool preferences just because they >>> have the luxury of updating on a whim or purely for bragging rights. >>> >>> It does not matter if my OS is dated, security patches are applied to the >>> build tools as they become available and this seems to satisfy all other >>> software that build from source except ClamAV. >>> >>> Having everything build with GCC 4.0 would allow me/us to re-deploy ClamAV >>> and contribute to the code base again (I have in the past) but the chances >>> of this are slim to non from what I recall because my OS and build tools >>> are dated and listening to rants about ancient and deprecated is nothing >>> more than someone spewing stupidity. >>> >>> The fact that I ensure all bugs and updates to the build tools are >>> fixed/added allows me to keep everything in harmony and there is no reason >>> to update anything to build a single software package when all other >>> software sources seem to be content with the existing build environment. >>> >>> If you wish to go off-list to continue the discussion I have no objections. >>> >>> >>> -- Dale >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 16:35 PM, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: >>> Dale, Thanks for your email. I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to. Maybe I am missing a connection here or something, but the discussion was around scanning DMG and XAR, which I think, if there’s a issue with, we’d be more than happy to work with anyone to try and square away. You seem to be discussing a build issue, and you say that it’s a waste of time. When did you get the impression that working with the developers was a waste of time? If we’re not communicating well enough, we can fix that. But I think the team is doing a good job of that judging by the amount of complaints I have received since we took over the project from the old ClamAV team. Please let me know if we need to take this offline and discuss or anything I can do to help. -- Joel Esler Open Source Manager Threat Intelligence Team Lead Vulnerability Research Team On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Dale Walsh mailto:d...@daleenterprise.com>> wrote: Mark, this has been an issue for many versions along with a slew of others things not working as expected. As much as I liked ClamAV, we've abandoned it as a mail solution shortly after things stopped working correctly and they changed the required build tools so you can no longer build it with GCC 3.3/4.0/4.1/4.2 and have a fully functional app. Yes there are flags to get it to build but certain modules and features don't build and making an incomplete and partially functional binary isn't appealing. Advice on updating build tools is a waste of time as there is no reason to update the build tools just to build ClamAV as it's the only one that has this ridiculous built-tool requirement and only an idiot would tell me to update. My thoughts on this is simple, if it doesn't build with the basic GNU GCC compiler tools then it's seriously flawed and needs these other tools to overcome the short-comings of poorly written/implemented code. When I say build, I mean build with full functionality so don't go off the deep-end stating it builds, partial functionality may be acceptable to you bhut it isn't to me. At this time, for personal use, I use the source code but repackage the build environment to work with what I have and I'm comfortable with >>
Re: [Clamav-devel] enabling DMG and XAR support
Sorry, I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Dale. If you're talking to me, my testing was done two days ago using ClamAV 0.98.1 Mark On 21 Mar 2014, at 13:16, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: > DMG support was just added in the last version of ClamAV. How long ago did > you do this testing? > > > On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Dale Walsh wrote: > >> You did miss it but it's a two headed nail. >> >> PDF, DMG, XAR and RAR have had issues not recognizing the test viruses to >> name just a couple that spring to mind that we've had trouble with and this >> all started happening when the clang and crap entered the picture. >> >> I've worked with the developers in the past, once the build environment >> dependancies changed and I was told I had to upgrade my OS and build tools >> is when it was no longer possible to resolve these issues as the update >> solely for the purpose of building ClamAV is not an option and I shouldn't >> be forced to use someone else's built tool preferences just because they >> have the luxury of updating on a whim or purely for bragging rights. >> >> It does not matter if my OS is dated, security patches are applied to the >> build tools as they become available and this seems to satisfy all other >> software that build from source except ClamAV. >> >> Having everything build with GCC 4.0 would allow me/us to re-deploy ClamAV >> and contribute to the code base again (I have in the past) but the chances >> of this are slim to non from what I recall because my OS and build tools are >> dated and listening to rants about ancient and deprecated is nothing more >> than someone spewing stupidity. >> >> The fact that I ensure all bugs and updates to the build tools are >> fixed/added allows me to keep everything in harmony and there is no reason >> to update anything to build a single software package when all other >> software sources seem to be content with the existing build environment. >> >> If you wish to go off-list to continue the discussion I have no objections. >> >> >> -- Dale >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2014, at 16:35 PM, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: >> >>> Dale, >>> >>> Thanks for your email. I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to. >>> Maybe I am missing a connection here or something, but the discussion was >>> around scanning DMG and XAR, which I think, if there’s a issue with, we’d >>> be more than happy to work with anyone to try and square away. >>> >>> You seem to be discussing a build issue, and you say that it’s a waste of >>> time. When did you get the impression that working with the developers was >>> a waste of time? If we’re not communicating well enough, we can fix that. >>> But I think the team is doing a good job of that judging by the amount of >>> complaints I have received since we took over the project from the old >>> ClamAV team. >>> >>> Please let me know if we need to take this offline and discuss or anything >>> I can do to help. >>> >>> -- >>> Joel Esler >>> Open Source Manager >>> Threat Intelligence Team Lead >>> Vulnerability Research Team >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Dale Walsh >>> mailto:d...@daleenterprise.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, this has been an issue for many versions along with a slew of others >>> things not working as expected. >>> >>> As much as I liked ClamAV, we've abandoned it as a mail solution shortly >>> after things stopped working correctly and they changed the required build >>> tools so you can no longer build it with GCC 3.3/4.0/4.1/4.2 and have a >>> fully functional app. >>> >>> Yes there are flags to get it to build but certain modules and features >>> don't build and making an incomplete and partially functional binary isn't >>> appealing. >>> >>> Advice on updating build tools is a waste of time as there is no reason to >>> update the build tools just to build ClamAV as it's the only one that has >>> this ridiculous built-tool requirement and only an idiot would tell me to >>> update. >>> >>> My thoughts on this is simple, if it doesn't build with the basic GNU GCC >>> compiler tools then it's seriously flawed and needs these other tools to >>> overcome the short-comings of poorly written/implemented code. >>> >>> When I say build, I mean build with full functionality so don't go off the >>> deep-end stating it builds, partial functionality may be acceptable to you >>> bhut it isn't to me. >>> >>> At this time, for personal use, I use the source code but repackage the >>> build environment to work with what I have and I'm comfortable with >>> submitting corrections and patches, too much focus and complaints on my >>> build tools so why waste my time. >>> >>> -- Dale >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Rafael Ferreira wrote: >>> >>> Interesting... let me run some tests and get back to you. >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Mark Allan >>> mailto:markjal...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Just out of interest, did you test to see if it
Re: [Clamav-devel] enabling DMG and XAR support
DMG support was just added in the last version of ClamAV. How long ago did you do this testing? On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Dale Walsh wrote: > You did miss it but it's a two headed nail. > > PDF, DMG, XAR and RAR have had issues not recognizing the test viruses to > name just a couple that spring to mind that we've had trouble with and this > all started happening when the clang and crap entered the picture. > > I've worked with the developers in the past, once the build environment > dependancies changed and I was told I had to upgrade my OS and build tools is > when it was no longer possible to resolve these issues as the update solely > for the purpose of building ClamAV is not an option and I shouldn't be forced > to use someone else's built tool preferences just because they have the > luxury of updating on a whim or purely for bragging rights. > > It does not matter if my OS is dated, security patches are applied to the > build tools as they become available and this seems to satisfy all other > software that build from source except ClamAV. > > Having everything build with GCC 4.0 would allow me/us to re-deploy ClamAV > and contribute to the code base again (I have in the past) but the chances of > this are slim to non from what I recall because my OS and build tools are > dated and listening to rants about ancient and deprecated is nothing more > than someone spewing stupidity. > > The fact that I ensure all bugs and updates to the build tools are > fixed/added allows me to keep everything in harmony and there is no reason to > update anything to build a single software package when all other software > sources seem to be content with the existing build environment. > > If you wish to go off-list to continue the discussion I have no objections. > > > -- Dale > > > > On Mar 20, 2014, at 16:35 PM, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote: > >> Dale, >> >> Thanks for your email. I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to. >> Maybe I am missing a connection here or something, but the discussion was >> around scanning DMG and XAR, which I think, if there’s a issue with, we’d be >> more than happy to work with anyone to try and square away. >> >> You seem to be discussing a build issue, and you say that it’s a waste of >> time. When did you get the impression that working with the developers was >> a waste of time? If we’re not communicating well enough, we can fix that. >> But I think the team is doing a good job of that judging by the amount of >> complaints I have received since we took over the project from the old >> ClamAV team. >> >> Please let me know if we need to take this offline and discuss or anything I >> can do to help. >> >> -- >> Joel Esler >> Open Source Manager >> Threat Intelligence Team Lead >> Vulnerability Research Team >> >> On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Dale Walsh >> mailto:d...@daleenterprise.com>> wrote: >> >> Mark, this has been an issue for many versions along with a slew of others >> things not working as expected. >> >> As much as I liked ClamAV, we've abandoned it as a mail solution shortly >> after things stopped working correctly and they changed the required build >> tools so you can no longer build it with GCC 3.3/4.0/4.1/4.2 and have a >> fully functional app. >> >> Yes there are flags to get it to build but certain modules and features >> don't build and making an incomplete and partially functional binary isn't >> appealing. >> >> Advice on updating build tools is a waste of time as there is no reason to >> update the build tools just to build ClamAV as it's the only one that has >> this ridiculous built-tool requirement and only an idiot would tell me to >> update. >> >> My thoughts on this is simple, if it doesn't build with the basic GNU GCC >> compiler tools then it's seriously flawed and needs these other tools to >> overcome the short-comings of poorly written/implemented code. >> >> When I say build, I mean build with full functionality so don't go off the >> deep-end stating it builds, partial functionality may be acceptable to you >> bhut it isn't to me. >> >> At this time, for personal use, I use the source code but repackage the >> build environment to work with what I have and I'm comfortable with >> submitting corrections and patches, too much focus and complaints on my >> build tools so why waste my time. >> >> -- Dale >> >> On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Rafael Ferreira wrote: >> >> Interesting... let me run some tests and get back to you. >> >> On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Mark Allan >> mailto:markjal...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Just out of interest, did you test to see if it *actually* worked? >> >> My configure output shows that dmg and xar are supported, but it doesn't >> actually detect the Eicar test file within a disk image. >> >> configure: Summary of engine detection features >>autoit_ea06 : yes >>bzip2 : ok >>zlib: /us
