>As root
>
> audit2allow -M mypol -i /var/log/audit/audit.log
> semodule -i mypol.pp
>
>This will go through your audit log and enable everything blocked by
>SELINUX. (It's a good idea to make sure that you want everything
>blocked so far permitted.)
>
>- --
>
> Steve
Steve,
This opened up
On Jan 4, 2008 9:19 PM, zamri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to access certain sites and it has been detected containing virus. I
> use dansguardian s.9.9.2 + clamav 0.92. I remember one right now. If you
> have found one, pls list here so I can check it out for testing.
>
> 1. www.myviper.ne
I tried to access certain sites and it has been detected containing virus. I
use dansguardian s.9.9.2 + clamav 0.92. I remember one right now. If you
have found one, pls list here so I can check it out for testing.
1. www.myviper.net
--
zamri
Linux System Administrator
Kolej ShahPutra Kuantan
Pa
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:07:44 -0500
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am using clamAV 0.91.2
>
> I set the VirusEvent to be alerted when we receive virus.
>
> Are there other variables then %v ? like adresse of the sender,...?
In clamd.conf you can only use %v. If you're calling a shell
El Friday, 04 January del 2008 a las 03:59:10PM, Paul Kosinski escribió:
> Fri 4 Jan 2008
>
> According to today's SecurityFocus.com, there are as many as 500,000
> different versions of malware. Most are not original code, but "mass-
> produced attempts to foil antivirus filters".
>
> And here I
Fri 4 Jan 2008
According to today's SecurityFocus.com, there are as many as 500,000
different versions of malware. Most are not original code, but "mass-
produced attempts to foil antivirus filters".
And here I thought that ClamAV's 186,092+ signatures was getting out
of hand!
In the interest of
Hello,
I am using clamAV 0.91.2
I set the VirusEvent to be alerted when we receive virus.
Are there other variables then %v ? like adresse of the sender,...?
Regards,
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://l
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:23:06 -0500 James Kosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Phil Chambers wrote:
> > Further testing has resulted in the following strange resutls:
> >
> > With the above message in the scan spool directory where exim creates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Chambers wrote:
> Further testing has resulted in the following strange resutls:
>
> With the above message in the scan spool directory where exim creates
the copy
> of the message for scanning I cd'd to the spool directory and got:
>
> clamscan
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:41:34 +0200 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil Chambers wrote:
> > clamdscan
> >
> > --- SCAN SUMMARY ---
> > Infected files: 0
> > Time: 0.002 sec (0 m 0 s)
> >
> > So, clamscan detects the signature but clamdscan does n
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:26:17 + Rob MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 3:20 PM, Phil Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <---SNIP--->
> > So, clamscan detects the signature but clamdscan does not! Note that some
> > examples of this signature do get detected by clamd.)
>
Phil Chambers wrote:
> clamdscan
>
> --- SCAN SUMMARY ---
> Infected files: 0
> Time: 0.002 sec (0 m 0 s)
>
> So, clamscan detects the signature but clamdscan does not! Note that some
> examples of this signature do get detected by clamd.)
>
>
Clamdscan detects the message
This message has beed re-sent because it contained text which may have
caused some of you to block it! I have edited the text to prevent this.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:31:05 + (GMT Standard Time) Phil Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, that was a great help and I have made some pr
On Jan 4, 2008 3:20 PM, Phil Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<---SNIP--->
> So, clamscan detects the signature but clamdscan does not! Note that some
> examples of this signature do get detected by clamd.)
File permissions problem (assuming you're not running clamd as root)?
--
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:31:05 + (GMT Standard Time) Phil Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, that was a great help and I have made some progress. I took the name
> of
> a signature from the log which was not being rejected by exim as it arrived
> from the Internet but was when ret
15 matches
Mail list logo