Dan wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0700 4/17/2010, Ralf Quint wrote:
At 02:09 PM 4/17/2010, Dan wrote:
Yea, I agree, the Clam team probably could have done things better.
But would more announcements or warnings have really made a
difference? Why would the people, that regularly ignore the
Freshclam warnings, pay attention?
OTOH, I wonder how many of these upset admins have taken even
partial responsibility - by admitting to their bosses that they
failed to apply any updates to a critical piece of software, for
over a YEAR?
You too seem to miss one very important point. It is not the ClamAV
project's place to judge and punish any failure by such admins. That
is soley up to the institution they have to report to.
As far as due diligence goes, ClamAV has done their part by
announcing the EOL of updates for ClamAV version before a certain
version ahead of time. They do not have any right to deliberately
mess with a running system...
Please explain this "right" that makes thy system so sacrosanct. I've
never heard of that.
IMO, it is unconscionable to run an outdated anti-virus product. Using
an AV provides an expectation down the line of a virus-free
environment. If the Clam team had borked things up so the ancient
versions would continue to run forever but without database updates...
then people would suddenly - without notification - be unnecessarily
vulnerable. Then what? Some fools would file lawsuits, claiming the
Clam team is legally liable for the resulting viral infections and
their clean-up! pah. The Clam team had one and only one responsible
choice: to remove the aged product from service before it became a
road hazard, er a liability around their necks. They were even nice
enough to give months of warnings.
- Dan.
I whole heartedly agree Dan. However I have been slandered today being
called arrogant and ignorant, so what do I know?
Jim
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
