Rick Macdougall wrote:
You could adopt a policy that yes, password-protected zip files can
be assumed to be viruses with the following clamd.conf option:
Yes, I understand that but I don't think a 2 should be returned for a
password protected zip file, 2 can be returned for any error, and
Rick Macdougall wrote:
René Berber wrote:
man clamdscan:
[snip]
RETURN CODES
0 : No virus found.
1 : Virus(es) found.
2 : An error occured.
Thanks,
One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
protected zip file considered an error ? I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
René Berber wrote:
man clamdscan:
[snip]
RETURN CODES
0 : No virus found.
1 : Virus(es) found.
2 : An error occured.
Thanks,
One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
protected zip file considered an error
René Berber wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
protected zip file considered an error ? I can't really allow scans
that return a 2 to pass through (well I can but I don't think it's a
good idea).
It has been discused before that
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Yes, I understand that but I don't think a 2 should be returned for a
password protected zip file, 2 can be returned for any error, and a
password protected zip file should not be an error. It should be 0
for regular use, or 1 if I enable ArchiveBlockEncrypted, it
