A few months ago one of our team observed that adding ign2 entries for bytecode signatures (BC.* signatures) can be confusing. They added these notes in a new task in our Jira:
It looks like bytecode sigs used to need to be allowlisted via ign2 files with entries like the following: BC.Img.Exploit.CVE_2018_4891-6453673-2.{} '{}' corresponded to an empty 'VirusName', but for BC sigs that use non-empty ones it would need to be allowlisted as: BC.Img.Exploit.CVE_2018_4891-6453673-2. {VirusNames} This commit makes it so that signatures can be allowlisted with just `BC.Img.Exploit.CVE_2018_4891-6453673-2` in the ign2 file: https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/clamav-devel/commit/b2f59861ee1a53c113fd37fe9378f739cc012042 The downsides with this approach are: - backward compatibility was not preserved, so any existing .ign2 sigs people had for bytecode rules likely stopped working - it's no longer possible to allowlist specific VirusNames from within a bytecode sig - currently, bytecode sigs that match with a VirusName will show up as BC.Img.Exploit.CVE_2018_4891-6453673-2.VirusName for the detection name, but the corresponding ign2 entry would have to be `BC.Img.Exploit.CVE_2018_4891-6453673-2` If we get a chance, we should address some or all of these. We should definitely document the current behavior and limitations for bytecode signature entries on https://docs.clamav.net/manual/Signatures/AllowLists.html?highlight=fp#file-allow-lists Orion if you're interested in helping with the docs, the equivalent page is here: https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/clamav-documentation/blob/main/src/manual/Signatures/AllowLists.md -Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: clamav-users <clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net> On Behalf Of > Orion Poplawski via clamav-users > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 12:35 PM > To: eric-l...@truenet.com; ClamAV users ML <clamav- > us...@lists.clamav.net> > Cc: Orion Poplawski <or...@nwra.com> > Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Cannot ignore BC.Gif.Exploit.Agent- > 1425366.Agent > > Looks like "BC.Gif.Exploit-1425366" finally did the trick. Thanks. Is this > kind of > thing documented anywhere? > > On 7/21/21 12:33 PM, eric-l...@truenet.com wrote: > > Orion, > > > > Did you keep .Agent at the end of the whitelist? > > It should just be BC.Gif.Exploit.Agent-1425366. > > > > I scanned the tar balls at gnome.org and didn't find anything though, but > maybe you got it from somewhere else. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Eric Tykwinski > > TrueNet, Inc. > > P: 610-429-8300 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: clamav-users <clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net> On Behalf > > Of Orion Poplawski via clamav-users > > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 1:48 PM > > To: ClamAV users ML <clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> > > Cc: Orion Poplawski <or...@nwra.com> > > Subject: [clamav-users] Cannot ignore > > BC.Gif.Exploit.Agent-1425366.Agent > > > > clamav is reporting BC.Gif.Exploit.Agent-1425366.Agent for a gif > > inside of the > > gdk-pixbuf2 tarball. I've tried adding it do our local whitelist.ign2 > > file, but > that doesn't appear to take effect. Any way to ignore this definition? > > > > Thanks, > > Orion > > > > -- > > Orion Poplawski > > IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637 > > NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 > > 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com > > Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Orion Poplawski > IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637 > NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 > 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com > Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml