Hi there, On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 David F. Skoll wrote:
> ...I think on-by-default code that is inefficient, badly-written, a > source of false-positives and of dubious value in a virus-scanner is > pretty important to discuss. and on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 David F. Skoll wrote: > Clam has a rather checkered security history, and some of its code > is pretty convoluted. Tomasz isn't the only one who finds this boring. Please either make a positive contribution or find another list on which to make trouble. If you think a particular piece of code is badly written, then send patches. Don't whine about it, that will just upset everybody. In that same message of Wed, 21 Nov 2007 David F. Skoll wrote: > > Anyone know if there is any substance to this vulnerability claim? > > http://wabisabilabi.blogspot.com/2007/11/focus-on-clamav-remote-code-execution.html > > It wouldn't surprise me. The poster didn't ask for opinion. He asked if anyone knows. You clearly don't know. Your opinion is a waste of bandwidth. -- 73, Ged. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
