[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In any case, I believe, mac users should come out of their self imposed
> complacence and should be encouraged to upload the threats that they find to
> clamAV database and that to happen Macintosh clamAV users should spread the
> word on all Macintosh forums that
I have been meaning to write about it and the post from Derek Currie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and the posts it has generated on the subject is very welcome indeed.
One of the causes that Mac malware is not in the clamAV database has been
identified by Derek C:
"This most likely is because Clamav i
Derek Currie wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2008, at 12/06, 7:26 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> There is
>> no naming standard.
>
> Again with the misinformation. There is, in fact, a naming standard,
> and an organization designated to provide those names. Whether an
> anti-malware provider chooses to
On Dec 6, 2008, at 12/06, 7:26 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> There is
> no naming standard.
Again with the misinformation. There is, in fact, a naming standard,
and an organization designated to provide those names. Whether an
anti-malware provider chooses to use the official name is up to th
Derek Currie wrote:
> Greetings folks,
>
> This is a reply to a thread started way back in April of 2008 (when
> it used to have the unfortunate subject line "Non-Windoze Viruses").
>
> Concerning the controversy about whether Clamav has definitions for
> Mac OS X malware, I managed to find t
On Dec 6, 2008, at 12/06, 6:38 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
- A pile of provoking rubbish.
> Do your homework first
I obviously know more about the subject than you, and have been doing
all the work to change the situation. Meanwhile, do please enjoy
sitting back and making fun of the world to w
On 2008-12-06 13:59, shuttlebox wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Tomi Hakala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> clamd process on my Solaris 10 x86 box grows up to 2 GB just in few days,
>> this seems a bit excessive for me. At first clamd was compiled in 32 bit
>> mode with gc
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Tomi Hakala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> clamd process on my Solaris 10 x86 box grows up to 2 GB just in few days,
> this seems a bit excessive for me. At first clamd was compiled in 32 bit
> mode with gcc but few days back I compiled it in 64 bit just to
Hello,
clamd process on my Solaris 10 x86 box grows up to 2 GB just in few days,
this seems a bit excessive for me. At first clamd was compiled in 32 bit
mode with gcc but few days back I compiled it in 64 bit just to see if it
had any effect, it did not.
Anyone else seeing such behaviour?
Here
Hi there,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 a self-confessed ClamAV Newbie wrote:
> I has been remarkably hard to find what malware are in Clamav's
> Definitions List.
This is an Open Source project. Have you considered sending a patch
for the documentation?
http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/
> At last havin
On 2008-12-06 00:49, Aleksey Tsalolikhin wrote:
> Hi. I just got Ubuntu 8.10 (32-bit) with the Ubuntu ClamAV package (v0.94.2).
>
> I am getting lots of errors while running
>
> sudo clamscan -r /
>
> Errors like
>
> WARNING: Can't open file /sys/bus/scsi/drivers/sr/bind
>
> LibClamAV
11 matches
Mail list logo
