On 4/17/14, 8:10 AM, David Raynor wrote:
Though inconsistent, it is less interesting then it may appear. The scanning
behavior is the same. Both return a clean disposition if limits are reached
and no signatures alert, including a message at debug level describing which
limit was exceeded. The only difference is that the xz scan (written more
recently) also logs a warning at the point when the limit is reached in the
middle of scanning the archive, and the gz scan (written less recently) does
not. Dave R.
Inconsistencies like this are interesting because they reflect sloppy design. I
stated earlier in a post that the error message was present based on my faith in
the product being consistent. Another reader was perplexed because of a
different experience. My faith in consistency of the design was misplaced. This
should never have passed peer review. The response from the "team" is that they
are considering a notification. I suggest you do the right thing regards
consistency and make the product less interesting by so doing.
dp
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
