I meant BC.Exploit.CVE_2012_0165 :-) - Alain
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Alain Zidouemba <azidoue...@sourcefire.com > wrote: > Thanks for the report Mark. Bytecode 174 and later fixes the problem. > Please update your signatures. If any of you can share the samples that > were falsely detected as BC.Exploit.CVE_2012_1865, please send them in at > http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/sendvirus/ . > > Thanks! > > - Alain > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark G Thomas <m...@misty.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm also getting hits on BC.Exploit.CVE_2012_0165 today, which I >> believe are false positives. >> >> Mark >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 05:14:13PM +0100, Cedric Knight wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > I'm seeing BC.Exploit.CVE_2012_0184 hit a wide variety of attachments as >> > of 14:40 UTC this afternoon. Will submit a sample the usual way, but >> > wanted to warn that it just seems to be quite extensive. (also >> > possibly BC.Exploit.CVE_2012_0165). >> > >> > Anyone else seeing this? >> > >> > -- >> > All best wishes, >> > >> > Cedric Knight >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit >> http://wiki.clamav.net >> > http://www.clamav.net/support/ml >> >> -- >> Mark G. Thomas (m...@misty.com) >> Web: http://mgtinternet.com/ >> Tel: +1-215-512-0112 US: 877-512-0112 >> _______________________________________________ >> Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net >> http://www.clamav.net/support/ml >> > > > _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
