James Kosin wrote: > But, it makes it extremely unlikely to occur; which is not what the > reporter suggests.
Howver, an atomic create-or-fail operation would eliminate all the danger for sure and also reduce the need for such an... erm... ornate filename-generation algorithm. (And using O_NOFOLLOW on systems that support it is a good idea.) [...] >> The first person that will be pwned because ClamAV failed to properly >> scan the Base64-UUEncoded file attachment that the user's mail client >> decodes and displays as regular attachment will greatly thank you and >> your wise and cautious look at virus-related issues. I disagree with the OP. A server-based scanner cannot possibly hope to protect all manner of stupid clients. A weird bit of malformed or ambiguous MIME might for example 0wn Outlook but it would be unreasonable to expect Clam to catch this. At some point, end-users have to learn about defence in depth and stop using broken client software (which practically means not using Windoze.) > symbolic links do not give users permission to overwrite files and > directories at will. You can overwrite your *own* files though. I would be quite annoyed if something scribbled over my ~/.bashrc file. It is a security risk. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
