On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:21:47 +0100, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Boyer wrote:
>
>> Downloading daily.cvd [*]
>> ERROR: Verification: Broken or not a CVD file
>> Giving up...
>>
>> I went to rc4 last night in the hope that it would be fixed, but I'm
>> getting the same error.
>
>
> This is
> Are there any independent tests out there that do not paint such a bleak
> picture? Are there any plans to submit ClamAV or ClamWin to Virus
> Bulletin?
Want stats? We employ clam, uvscan (McAfee/NAI) and bdc. Clam is much
faster because of clamd so it is first. Here is the breakdown in orde
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
I'm not a developer but this looks similar to what I'm seeing on Solaris.
Is readdir_r in use here ? (grep READDIR_R clamav-config.h)
Can you post the dirent struct from your /usr/include/sys/dirent.h file ?
Otherwise the following command should give enough:
find /usr/
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:28:58 -0500
Dale Bohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/hsm/terabyte: OK
> /home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/hsm/archiving: OK
> /home/cheetah/dbohl/proj/uit/home_links_reasons: OK
> LibClamAV Error: Can't create temporary file : No such file or
> directory Memory
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Rob Dueckman wrote:
I'm running mimedefang/spamassassin/clamav on an IRIX 6.5 machine and
have found that some files cause both clamd and clamscan to core.
Since I'm still running this combo, I can't forward the message to the
list, but it can be found at: ftp://ftp.heloc.com/p
Uggg... I've pulled the latest gdb down and built it. It builds OK,
but it won't work properly (complains with the message "warning: Signal
? does not exist on this system." and just sits spinning)
SGI's dbx isn't much help either (and I really don't know how to use it
:-)
I think I'll have to
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:01:23 -0500
Dale Bohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
6/5/24m without any issues.
0.75 is no longer supported.
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
>> Hi, how do you make ClamAV update virus database as soon as possible
>> when the signature becomes ready?
>>
>> Sam.
>>
> [Mitch (bitblock)]
> Sam. Bad toad! Don't hijack threads.
>
> You can run freshclam - there is no such thing as an instant
> update - the
> latest ve
> Hi, how do you make ClamAV update virus database as soon as possible
> when the signature becomes ready?
>
> Sam.
>
[Mitch (bitblock)]
Sam. Bad toad! Don't hijack threads.
You can run freshclam - there is no such thing as an instant update - the
latest version uses DNS records to allow more
On Thursday 21 October 2004 10:09 am, Bogusław Brandys wrote:
> I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
> sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
> differences , to stop submit just junk emails? Or it is accepted ?
nntp://news.admin.net-abuse.s
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:01:23 -0500
Dale Bohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
>
> I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
> ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
> 6/5/24m without any issues.
0.75 is no longer supported. Please
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:09:20 +0200
Bogus³aw Brandys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
>
> sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
No, we all have billions of them.
--
oo. Tomasz Kojm <[
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 16:09, Bogusław Brandys wrote:
> I must ask.I have many spam messages in my email folder. Do I consider
> sending them as a submission ? Should people know what are the
> differences , to stop submit just junk emails? Or it is accepted ?
>
No. Definitely not.
I get over
Any help will be greatly appreciated on this.
I'm on IRIX 6.5.15m - MIPS and trying to install
ClamAV 0.75 but cannot. I have installed 0.75 on IRIX
6/5/24m without any issues.
The ./configure results are attached.
The make and make install went fine.
When running /usr/local/bin/freshclam I see
ch
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Thursday 21 October 2004 09:46 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Bogusław Brandys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
malware.
So
On Thursday 21 October 2004 09:46 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
>
> Bogus³aw Brandys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
> > > instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
> > > malware.
>
On Thursday 21 October 2004 08:25 am, Forexys Support Center wrote:
> Hi
>
> i have a small problems with the 0.80 version ... he don't want start
> correctly..
>
> I have:
>
> 6616 ?S 0:00 \_ supervise clamd
> 6707 ?Z 0:00 | \_ [run]
> 6617 ?S 0:00 \
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Bogus³aw Brandys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are different signatures (non MD5 in this case) for different
> > instances of phishing emails. So I wouldn't really call that
> > malware.
>
> So it is harmless ?
Well, that depends on an intelligence of a
Trog wrote:
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:48, Bogusław Brandys wrote:
Hello,
Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
signatures ?
Well, it depends what the signature is for.
Today was for example su
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:23:35 +0100
Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Occasionally you'll see sigs like Worm.Bagle.AG.2, which may be a
> second signature to match a different instance of the same malware.
For example re-packed with a packer we don't support at the moment.
--
oo.
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:48, Bogusław Brandys wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
> malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
> signatures ?
Well, it depends what the signature is for.
> Today was for example s
Hello,
Could someone explain why there are sometimes a few signatures for one
malware ? Does it mean that malware has small change and that are MD5
signatures ?
Today was for example submission of
HTML.Phishing.Auction-1
HTML.Phishing.Auction-2
HTML.Phishing.Bank-5
In trying to compile .80 on SUSE 9.0 Pro AMD64, I get two errors. In
the archives I noticed someone with the same problem back in April but
he never solved it.
The first error is 'make' complains about libgmp. I do have libgmp in
/lib64 but not in /lib. I assume I should be able to compile a
Hii have a small problems with the 0.80 version ... he don't want
start correctly..I have: 6616
? S
0:00 \_ supervise clamd 6707
? Z
0:00 | \_ [run] 6617
? S
0:00 \_ supervise log 6618
? S
0:00 \_ /usr/bin/multilog t s100 n
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:37:09 +0200
Alexander Harkenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clamd didn't find the virus in a zip file where the zip file
> information is manipulated. The global information in this zip
> file about the size of the file was set to 0 Byte.
We are aware of the problem and
Hello all,
I tested my clamd version 0.80-1 which I use on my mail server
with manipulated zip files as I read some warnings in some news
regarding this issue.
Clamd didn't find the virus in a zip file where the zip file
information is manipulated. The global information in this zip
file ab
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:01:46 + (UTC), Virgo Pärna wrote:
>
> dragon:~/soft/clamav> clamscan -r -i --no-summary clamav-0.80.tar.gz
> clamav-0.80.tar.gz: Exploit.JPEG.Comment.E9 FOUND
>
I forget to to post immediatly - it didn'd happen anymore on
Tuesday. So, the updated signatures fixed
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Trog
> $ gdb clamscan
> (gdb) run /path/to/message.txt
>
> (wait for seg fault)
>
> (gdb) bt
Before doing that it would help to rebuild from source using the "-g"
option.
> -trog
-Nigel
___
http://lists.clamav.ne
; On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 16:33, Grant Supp wrote:
;
; > It seems to happen when scanning the same files. "Untitled Attachment" seems to
cause the problem evey time. I think this attachment might be generated by Outlook
2003 when assigning a task to a user, although I'm not sure, since I don't have
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 20:25, Rob Dueckman wrote:
> I'm running mimedefang/spamassassin/clamav on an IRIX 6.5 machine and
> have found that some files cause both clamd and clamscan to core.
>
> Since I'm still running this combo, I can't forward the message to the
> list, but it can be found at: ft
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 16:33, Grant Supp wrote:
> It seems to happen when scanning the same files. "Untitled Attachment" seems to
> cause the problem evey time. I think this attachment might be generated by Outlook
> 2003 when assigning a task to a user, although I'm not sure, since I don't have
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:38:49AM +0200, BogusÅaw Brandys wrote:
> Right.Put ClamAV on front and commercial scanner on back ;-)
> ClamAV do not recognize many polymorphic malwares, but today there are
> not so many such malwares ;-)
Too right - that describes exactly how Qmail-Scanner utilizes C
Hi
Niek wrote:
On 10/21/2004 1:21 AM +0200, Dave P wrote:
I am trying to convince my company to switch to open
source where possible. It is much easier if the
software has been evaluated by an independent group.
Unfortunately, reviews that I could find, including
GMX Systematic and Heise magazines,
On 10/21/2004 1:21 AM +0200, Dave P wrote:
I am trying to convince my company to switch to open
source where possible. It is much easier if the
software has been evaluated by an independent group.
Unfortunately, reviews that I could find, including
GMX Systematic and Heise magazines, were negativ
> Keep up the good work guys - ClamAV is superb!!!
This means QS will continue support ClamAV, right. :D
Thx & Rgds,
Awie
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
35 matches
Mail list logo
