On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 05:40:55PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: > On 2008-08-20 17:31, Henrik K wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:00:46PM +1000, Bill Maidment wrote: > > > >> Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one > >> with an empty > >> database. Then let the user decide which he requires. > >> > > > > I agree, Sourceforge mirrors are pretty slow these days. ;) > > > > This reminds me, I'd rather not see ClamAV software updates at all unless > > absolutely necessary. I have a very good example, the last free Bitdefender > > for Linux: > > > > # ./bdc > > BDC/Linux-Console v7.1 (build 2559) (i386) (Jul 6 2005 16:28:53) > > > > The (very small) binary works great even today! The whole engine and > > components are updated together with signatures! > > > > 192205 2008-08-19 22:35 cevakrnl.xmd > > 45811 2008-06-18 21:35 unpack.xmd > > 20564 2008-08-04 20:35 zip.xmd > > ... > > > > I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to > > see ClamAV use this kind of technology. > > > > Distributing binary executable code via database updates? I don't think > that is a wise idea. > Perhaps distributing bytecode would allow you to use older engines for > longer time.
I don't care what the method would be. Be innovative. Create a safe method. :) Distributing "whole sources" to fix smaller (but serious) issues seems a waste. For example, some zip exploit. Just disabling the zip engine and hoping that users upgrade soon is ok, but not very high-tech. It would be wonderful to just get the core zip engine updated together with signatures. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
