I submitted a bug report at Ubuntu Launchpad to have ClamAV updated to
the latest 0.101.4 -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/clamav/+bug/1841281
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft)
17:18:57 up 13 days, 8:36, 1 user, load average: 1.36, 0.86, 0.80
Descri
On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 18:47 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 22.08.19 16:12, Chris Pollock via clamav-users wrote:
> > The most current version is ClamAV 0.100.3 for Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS.
> > Is
> > there a list of CVE's that I can reference in a bug report to
nks Al.
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 17:37 PM, Chris Pollock via clamav-users
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 16:58 -0700, Al Varnell via clamav-users
> > wrote:
> > > I'm don't see anything specifying 0.100.3 yet: <
> > > https://cve.mitre.org/cg
ameters?
>
> On Aug 22, 2019, at 14:12, Chris Pollock via clamav-users <
> clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> wrote:
> > The most current version is ClamAV 0.100.3 for Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS.
> > Is
> > there a list of CVE's that I can reference in a bug report
The most current version is ClamAV 0.100.3 for Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS. Is
there a list of CVE's that I can reference in a bug report to try and
get ClamAV updated to the latest version?
Thank you
Chris
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft)
16:10:12 up 9 days, 7:27, 1
On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 11:07 +, G.W. Haywood via clamav-users wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Joel Esler wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:22, G.W. Haywood via clamav-users ... wrote:
> >
> > > ... we really only use ClamAV to scan mail. I guess we're as
> > > untypical of a Cl
On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 17:55 -0500, Maarten Broekman via clamav-users
wrote:
> I have 48472 and 48473. The 48474 I got was the gdb file that was
> downloaded as part of the cdiff. The freshclam process hung after
> downloading though. The order of the 48474 gdb file was no different
> from the orde
On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 14:20 +, Micah Snyder (micasnyd) via clamav-
users wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> So you're saying it actually did finish after 3 hours, 15 minutes on
> its own? That is good news for all of the automated systems, even if
> this is a potentially terrible bug.
>
> I'm still invest