On 2011-02-28 17:14, Tomasz Kojm wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:03:34 -0900 Royce Williams > <royce.willi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable >> optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV >> version? > > Such mechanisms are already available in ClamAV. Also freshclam >= > 0.96.2 will never install a database that cannot be properly loaded > (unless one explicitly disables the TestDatabases option in freshclam.conf). >
Maybe we should tag all our new signatures with 0.96.4+ (ldb, bytecode, and ndb at least)? Of course that means that 0.95 would be even less effective at detecting malware than it already is (no VI/IDB/CBC support there), but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than actually detecting malware. Best regards, --Edwin _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
