<mailto:newcome...@posteo.de>
CC / CC: Damian <mailto:clamav-us...@arcsin.de>
Gesendet / Sent: Mittwoch, März 15, 2023 um 10:27 (at 10:27 AM) +0100
Betreff / Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Memory allocation issue
However this .wdb will not pla
However this .wdb will not play with 1.0.1
Can we have it?___
Manage your clamav-users mailing list subscription / unsubscribe:
https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/Cisc
Hello
Currently using Clamav 0.103.8 and I am looking at Clamav 1.0.1 as our
next LTS service.
I have one small custom .wdb file which works fine with 0.103.8 and
earlier versions.
However this .wdb will not play with 1.0.1 and produces
root@myhouse:/home/paule# /usr/local/bin/clamscan --d
>
> --
> *From:* clamav-users on behalf of
> Jorge Elissalde via clamav-users
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2022 8:08 AM
> *To:* ClamAV users ML
> *Cc:* Jorge Elissalde
> *Subject:* Re: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop
clamdscan
>
>1. clamdscan --log= --multiscan ...
>
> Neither of these were able to reproduce the behavior you are seeing. Can
> you tell me a little more about your particular configuration, and what
> else I can try to reproduce this?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> --
&g
gt;
>
> ------
> *From:* clamav-users on behalf of
> Jorge Elissalde via clamav-users
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2022 8:08 AM
> *To:* ClamAV users ML
> *Cc:* Jorge Elissalde
> *Subject:* Re: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop runn
From: clamav-users on behalf of Jorge
Elissalde via clamav-users
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 8:08 AM
To: ClamAV users ML
Cc: Jorge Elissalde
Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop running
Hi,
Thank you for your time and tests.
If I turn off the ScanArchive switch
;
> --
> *From:* clamav-users on behalf of
> Jorge Elissalde via clamav-users
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2022 6:20 AM
> *To:* ClamAV users ML
> *Cc:* Jorge Elissalde
> *Subject:* Re: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop running
lse I can
try to reproduce this?
Thanks,
Andy
From: clamav-users on behalf of Jorge
Elissalde via clamav-users
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 6:20 AM
To: ClamAV users ML
Cc: Jorge Elissalde
Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop runnin
is being scanned when this happens?
>
> Could you please send clamd's logs to help determine what is going on?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
> --
> *From:* clamav-users on behalf of
> Jorge Elissalde via clamav-users
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 7, 2
ar file that is being scanned when this happens?
>
> Could you please send clamd's logs to help determine what is going on?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
> --
> *From:* clamav-users on behalf of
> Jorge Elissalde via clamav-users
> *Sent:* W
022 3:41 PM
To: ClamAV users ML
Cc: Jorge Elissalde
Subject: [clamav-users] Memory Allocation error, clamd stop running
Hi,
I'm using the latest Windows Clamav version (1.0.0).
I'm connected to clamd and I request a folder scan having 94,249 files, 10GB
total.
The command I send is MU
Hi,
I'm using the latest Windows Clamav version (1.0.0).
I'm connected to clamd and I request a folder scan having 94,249 files,
10GB total.
The command I send is MULTISCAN [folder].
When scanner is over 9,075 files it stops working and the message is:
memory allocation of 1048576 bytes failed
C
folks who wish to run with as much coverage
as possible.
-Micah
From: clamav-users On Behalf Of
PenguinWhispererThe via clamav-users
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:08 AM
To: ClamAV users ML
Cc: PenguinWhispererThe
Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Memory usage going up until OOM
That 2 hour
That 2 hour you mention seems to explain why it's always around the same
time and seems to come earlier or later by 2 hours.
I do not know if it literally coincides with that refresh (not sure if
that's logged on my system).
Having the database reloaded in chunks looks a lot more efficient to me.
Citeren PenguinWhispererThe via clamav-users :
Hi,
I have a webserver with 4GB of memory that also functions as a mailserver.
The mail volume is rather low (perhaps a few hundred mails/day).
Almost every day around the same time I get a swap usage warning and once
in a while clamd crashes becau
On 02/12/2020 09:34, PenguinWhispererThe via clamav-users wrote:
Hi,
I have a webserver with 4GB of memory that also functions as a mailserver.
The mail volume is rather low (perhaps a few hundred mails/day).
Almost every day around the same time I get a swap usage warning and
once in a while c
Thanks! I've modified the setting. Seems very likely that this is the
culprit.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 09:41, Andrew C Aitchison
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, PenguinWhispererThe via clamav-users wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a webserver with 4GB of memory that also functions as a
> mailserver.
>
Hi,
I have a webserver with 4GB of memory that also functions as a mailserver.
The mail volume is rather low (perhaps a few hundred mails/day).
Almost every day around the same time I get a swap usage warning and once
in a while clamd crashes because it has no more swap space available
blocking ma
Clearly it was announced that future signatures would not be checked against
0.97.x and that they might or might not work after 1June.
The last time you referred to was done purposely and announced because a new
signature format was added which would not work at all with older engines, so
those
On 23 October 2016 21:11:26 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.10.16 22:53, Steve basford wrote:
Upgrade... ie.
https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/ClamAV_DB_update_leads_to_**UNCHECKED**_in_all_messages
I wonder if this hasn't been known prior to the update.
Last EOL blog entry I saw was:
h
On 22.10.16 22:53, Steve basford wrote:
Upgrade... ie.
https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/ClamAV_DB_update_leads_to_**UNCHECKED**_in_all_messages
I wonder if this hasn't been known prior to the update.
Last time I remember a signasture was pushed that deliberately made clamav
crash, but it was annou
Thanks for all answers.
I will upgrade my zimbra.
Best Regards.
2016-10-22 19:53 GMT-02:00 Steve basford :
> Upgrade... ie. https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/C
> lamAV_DB_update_leads_to_**UNCHECKED**_in_all_messages
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
> Twitter: @sanesecurity
>
>
>
>
> On 22 October 2016 21:40:1
Upgrade... ie.
https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/ClamAV_DB_update_leads_to_**UNCHECKED**_in_all_messages
Cheers,
Steve
Twitter: @sanesecurity
On 22 October 2016 21:40:11 Marcelo Machado wrote:
Hi everybody.
I have a Zimbra server and the clamav crashes when it loads the virus
definitions afte
Correct. That version is EOL.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Yuri Voinov wrote:
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> First of all, upgrade. Current version is 0.99.2. Your version is simple
> ancient and rancid years ago.
>
>
> 23.10.2016 2:39,
> On 22 Oct 2016, at 22:39, Marcelo Machado wrote:
>
> Hi everybody.
>
> I have a Zimbra server and the clamav crashes when it loads the virus
> definitions after last updates. The freshclam.log shown many lines with
> this error "WARNING: [libclamav] mpool_malloc (): Attempt to allocate
> 8388
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
First of all, upgrade. Current version is 0.99.2. Your version is simple
ancient and rancid years ago.
23.10.2016 2:39, Marcelo Machado ?:
> Hi everybody.
>
> I have a Zimbra server and the clamav crashes when it loads the virus
> definitions
Hi everybody.
I have a Zimbra server and the clamav crashes when it loads the virus
definitions after last updates. The freshclam.log shown many lines with
this error "WARNING: [libclamav] mpool_malloc (): Attempt to allocate
8388608 bytes Please report to http://bugs.clamav.net.";
Clamav version
All of that is being looked at in the freshclam rewrite portion of the next
version of ClamAV.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Matt Olney skrev den 2013-03-26 14:10:
>
> Not really sure what other people are thinking. ClamAV is built into
>> Sourcefire's advanced malw
Matt Olney skrev den 2013-03-26 14:10:
Not really sure what other people are thinking. ClamAV is built into
Sourcefire's advanced malware protection product (FireAMP). So we
use it,
at least.
will it be opensource, with license key ?, well for now i happy with
clamav, its good to use for st
Not really sure what other people are thinking. ClamAV is built into
Sourcefire's advanced malware protection product (FireAMP). So we use it,
at least.
Matt
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Matt Olney skrev den 2013-03-22 18:49:
>
>
> Yep, we've heard that a couple
Matt Olney skrev den 2013-03-22 18:49:
Yep, we've heard that a couple of times. We'll do our best to
address it.
being on clouds with sigle user clamd is waste of ram :)
i find this very funny that a cloud service cant provide cloud service
with clamd
are clamd not powerfull enough yet ?
HI Christian,
Yep, we've heard that a couple of times. We'll do our best to address it.
Matt
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Christian Salway wrote:
> In your new version, can you please consider how to run it on low memory
> systems (<512MB) for spamassassin other than direct from the comm
In your new version, can you please consider how to run it on low memory
systems (<512MB) for spamassassin other than direct from the command line
which takes time to load each time it's called.
Our basic internet servers we roll out to dedicated clients run on the
Amazon EC2 micro servers and con
Hello all,
I noticed that the memory usage of clamd (latest version) is to high.
about 7,4% of my servers ram.
That's 148 MB. I know that's a known Issue, but is there a possibility
to make the usage less?
Thank you.
Regards,
Dimas Korbmacher
___
Quoting Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's rather simple. Every single one of the viruses we looked at has
> been a windows executable, therefore could not have possibly infected a
> non windows platform.
You've never seen a macro virus???
What OS they execute on isn't really the point. The
At 13:04 31-03-2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
>information or in the message that identifies the source OS, hardware,
>or MTA. Everything in a message can be spoofed as can the sending
Passive OS fingerprinting. That only works if t
It may be just me, but I think this topic has been beaten to death :-\
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> I've had a feeling for several posts that we have not been having the
> same conversation. I've never seen anything but Windows viruses in the
> nearly 30 years I've been doing this but that's not what we're talking
> about. We're talking about the probability that Wind
Joe Sloan wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Joe Sloan wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
>>> whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
>>> practice.
>
>> How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connec
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:38:10 -0700
Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > Joe Sloan wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
> >> whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
> >> practice.
>
> >
Jason Haar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> P0f maybe? Although with my experience it has never been that accurate
>> and is easy to fool if one so desires.
>>
> We're using p0f integrated into Qmail-Scanner to track what OS is
> associated with incoming SMTP connections.
>
> Just to add
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Joe Sloan wrote:
>> Perhaps our sample size is too small, but it certainly seems that this
>> whole overhyped idea of viruses apart from ms windows is a non-issue in
>> practice.
> How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
> information or in th
Gerard wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:59:05 -0700
> Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John Rudd wrote:
>
>>> Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
>>> can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed
>>> that is, as I said, being naive. And
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> P0f maybe? Although with my experience it has never been that accurate
> and is easy to fool if one so desires.
>
We're using p0f integrated into Qmail-Scanner to track what OS is
associated with incoming SMTP connections.
Just to add some 'facts' to this discussion
Quoting Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matter are fairly
> clear.
Are they?
> We run mail servers that see tens of millions of messages monthly
> on behalf of 15,000 users.
I run much smaller ones...
> Out of the thousands of different viruses
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> How are able to determine that? There's nothing in the connection
> information or in the message that identifies the source OS, hardware,
> or MTA. Everything in a message can be spoofed as can the sending
> system. The only thing you can be sure of is the IP you log d
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:59:05 -0700
Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
> > Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
> > can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed
> > that is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
> Whi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben wrote:
| I run clamd on a CentOS server, with freshclam, and clamsmtpd to scan
mail.
| And I use it interfacing with postfix.
| However, just clamd alone uses 23 Megabytes when idle!
|
| Can someone post configuration options to limit or lower me
Joe Sloan wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>
>> Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
>> can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed that
>> is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
>
>
> While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matte
John Rudd wrote:
> Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they
> can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed that
> is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible.
While it's fine to talk theory, the facts of the matter are fairly
clear. We run ma
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38:23PM -0700, Joe Sloan wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
> > Joe Sloan wrote:
> >> John Rudd wrote:
> >>> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> And to follow up on the earlier
> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
> distribution,
> >>> The i
Joe Sloan wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>> Joe Sloan wrote:
>>> John Rudd wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> And to follow up on the earlier
> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
> distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.)
John Rudd wrote:
> Joe Sloan wrote:
>> John Rudd wrote:
>>> Dennis Peterson wrote:
And to follow up on the earlier
point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
distribution,
>>> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
>>> net
Joe Sloan wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>> And to follow up on the earlier
>>> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
>>> distribution,
>>
>> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
>> net cannot be subverted int
John Rudd wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> And to follow up on the earlier
>> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
>> distribution,
>
>
> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
> net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus z
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:07:32 -0700
Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
> > Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >> And to follow up on the earlier
> >> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
> >> distribution,
> >
> >
> > The idea that any platform (
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> And to follow up on the earlier
> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
> distribution,
>
> Two minutes to hack a Mac and it's now available to generate spam and
> become a drone to spread malware for other Macs or Windows systems.
>
>
John Rudd wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> And to follow up on the earlier
>> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
>> distribution,
>
>
> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
> net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus z
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> And to follow up on the earlier
> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus
> distribution,
The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the
net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is, at best,
naive. An
rick pim wrote:
> Dennis Peterson writes:
> > But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
> > if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
>
>
> spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
> email-borne viruses are way, way down: yeste
rick pim wrote:
> Dennis Peterson writes:
> > But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
> > if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
>
>
> spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
> email-borne viruses are way, way down: yeste
Dennis Peterson writes:
> But we know from the volumes of spam and viruses now approaching
> if not exeeding 90% that you are the exception, not the norm.
spam yes, viruses. not so much. our experience has been that
email-borne viruses are way, way down: yesterday's logs from one of
our ma
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:14:38 +0200
Sarocet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
> > your idiot policy on outgoing virus scanning. I agree with him. I'm sure
> > I'm not the only one who would blacklist you ri
Ben wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wow - as a long term IT professional I thought I'd heard it all but this
>> takes the cake. In all the past waves of viruses we've seen, they have
>> been analyzed in depth and found to be 100% windows. If you
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:06:01 +0200
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wow - as a long term IT professional I thought I'd heard it all but this
> > takes the cake. In all the past waves of viruses we've seen, they have
> > b
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Bit Fuzzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's right of course, the thought alone is dangerous for any
> administrator to entertain.
I'll tell you what:
I'll stop using clamav entirely and go use something much better.
Don't bother replying, I will not read it.
I'
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow - as a long term IT professional I thought I'd heard it all but this
> takes the cake. In all the past waves of viruses we've seen, they have
> been analyzed in depth and found to be 100% windows. If you have some
> evi
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Joe Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not unthinkable, there actually are places where microsoft software
> is not used.
Indeed.
Those paranoid idiots who put mailservers on blacklists based on
some words in a mailinglist need to get a reality check either
Bit Fuzzy wrote:
It's not unthinkable, there actually are places where microsoft software
is not used.
>>> Doesn't matter - there's no reason to suspect that all viruses originate
>>> from Windows. Could I have your outgoing smtp IP please?
>>>
>>>
Sarocet wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
>> your idiot policy on outgoing virus scanning. I agree with him. I'm sure
>> I'm not the only one who would blacklist you right now because of your
>> policy if we knew your outgoing
>>> It's not unthinkable, there actually are places where microsoft software
>>> is not used.
>>>
>> Doesn't matter - there's no reason to suspect that all viruses originate
>> from Windows. Could I have your outgoing smtp IP please?
>>
>
> Wow - as a long term IT professional I thou
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Joe Sloan wrote:
>> It's not unthinkable, there actually are places where microsoft software
>> is not used.
>
> Doesn't matter - there's no reason to suspect that all viruses originate
> from Windows. Could I have your outgoing smtp IP please?
Wow - as a long term IT
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
> your idiot policy on outgoing virus scanning. I agree with him. I'm sure
> I'm not the only one who would blacklist you right now because of your
> policy if we knew your outgoing smtp IP.
>
Scanni
Joe Sloan wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Ben wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:37 AM, taj home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
please dont email me.
>>> I'm not emailing you.
>> I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
>> your idiot policy on outgoing virus scann
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Ben wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:37 AM, taj home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> please dont email me.
>> I'm not emailing you.
>
> I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
> your idiot policy on outgoing virus scanning.
Come now, that's
Ben wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:37 AM, taj home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> please dont email me.
>
> I'm not emailing you.
I think he's suggesting that he'd prefer you not mail him because of
your idiot policy on outgoing virus scanning. I agree with him. I'm sure
I'm not the only one
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:37 AM, taj home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please dont email me.
I'm not emailing you.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
please dont email me.
On 3/30/08, Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Randal Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Ben wrote:...
> > > Virus scanning is not even that important on this server, my users
> > > would never be sending vir
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 23 meg is not very large. Many versions ago it would grow to half a gig
> at which time my watchdog would restart it.
How would one implement that?
Or is that just a matter of googling "watchdog" ?
I've never used one,
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Randal Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Ben wrote:...
> > Virus scanning is not even that important on this server, my users
> > would never be sending viruses,
> This is a dangerous assumption.
> Conceivably, your users would n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Ben wrote:...
>
> Virus scanning is not even that important on this server, my users
> would never be sending viruses,
.
.
.
This is a dangerous assumption.
Conceivably, your users would never /intentionally/ send viruses
Ben wrote:
> I run clamd on a CentOS server, with freshclam, and clamsmtpd to scan mail.
> And I use it interfacing with postfix.
> However, just clamd alone uses 23 Megabytes when idle!
>
That is approximately what I see with RHEL4 and Solaris 9. For Solaris 8
and 10 on a fresh start it is abou
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I run clamd on a CentOS server, with freshclam, and clamsmtpd to scan mail.
> And I use it interfacing with postfix.
> However, just clamd alone uses 23 Megabytes when idle!
23 MB is huge? What are you running it on, a Commodore 6
I run clamd on a CentOS server, with freshclam, and clamsmtpd to scan mail.
And I use it interfacing with postfix.
However, just clamd alone uses 23 Megabytes when idle!
Can someone post configuration options to limit or lower memory
footstamp of clamav all around?
I'm looking for concrete functio
Hi list-
Just upgraded to the latest devel release of ClamAV
(clamav-devel-20080124) under FreeBSD 6.3-RC2 and immidiately got
memory/resource/perms error and high processor load. According to
ports the ClamAV version:
%pkg_info | grep clamav
clamav-devel-20080124 Command line virus scanner writt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 03:18:42PM -0600, Joshua Rubin wrote:
>Tue Aug 14 15:08:40 2007 -> No stats for Database check - forcing reload
>Tue Aug 14 15:08:40 2007 -> Reading databases from /var/share/clamav
>Tue Aug 14 15:09:16 2007 -> Database correct
Hi All,
We have found a fairly reliable way to reproduce this bug.
1. Edit the clamd.conf so that SelfCheck is set to 30 (seconds).
2. Restart clamd
3. Wait for the databases to load plus an additional 30 seconds (a
minute is plenty)
4. Scan a file with clamdscan
5. Look in the log file for somet
Hi All,
> The graph shows two sudden increases in memory consumption, both
> consist of more than one step change. The first group of events is a
> change from 30 to 56 Megabytes at 04:50 on July 18 and from 56 to 61
> Megabytes at 08:55 on the same day. The second is on July 27 when
> memory cons
Eric Kruse schrieb:
>> Does clamd (0.91.1) have a memory leak of some sort?
> >
> > After it's started, it takes just about 40-50 MB:
> >
> > clamav 13602 48.0 8.4 47932 45128 ?Ds 10:38
> 0:01
> > clamd
> > -c /etc/clamd.conf
> Does clamd (0.91.1) have a memory leak of some sort?
>
> After it's started, it takes just about 40-50 MB:
>
> clamav 13602 48.0 8.4 47932 45128 ?Ds 10:38
0:01
> clamd
> -c /etc/clamd.conf
>
>
> Aft
Hi there,
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Re: memory leak in clamd (0.91.1)?
> Does clamd (0.91.1) have a memory leak of some sort?
I use sendmail and clamav-milter, and I see something rather strange
with 0.91.1. I haven't usesd versions between those, I moved from
0.88.7 direct
Le Mon 13/08/2007, Tomasz Chmielewski disait
> Does clamd (0.91.1) have a memory leak of some sort?
>
> After it's started, it takes just about 40-50 MB:
>
> clamav 13602 48.0 8.4 47932 45128 ?Ds 10:38 0:01 clamd
> -c /etc/clamd.conf
>
>
> After some time, the memory usage goes
Does clamd (0.91.1) have a memory leak of some sort?
After it's started, it takes just about 40-50 MB:
clamav 13602 48.0 8.4 47932 45128 ?Ds 10:38 0:01 clamd
-c /etc/clamd.conf
After some time, the memory usage goes to about 100 MB, machine begins
to swap more and more:
clama
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Mark wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Stephan Brauss
> > Sent: zaterdag 23 december 2006 12:39
> > To: 'ClamAV users ML'
> > Subject: RE:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Stephan Brauss wrote:
> > My experience: vmdk-file can't be properly scanned without accounting for
> > the vmdk base of the file. They are not files Clamav understands. Just as
> > zip files need special handling, vmdk files need special handling. VMware
>
> > has publish
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Stephan Brauss
> Sent: zaterdag 23 december 2006 12:39
> To: 'ClamAV users ML'
> Subject: RE: [Clamav-users] Memory leak on x86_64!?
>
> > My experience: vmd
> My experience: vmdk-file can't be properly scanned without accounting for
> the vmdk base of the file. They are not files Clamav understands. Just as
> zip files need special handling, vmdk files need special handling. VMware
> has published the specs. I don't have the time/smarts to process
> I don't know the format of a VMWare file. Is it useful to scan it (or are
> the contents enough unlike what a scanner knows about that problems are
> unlikely to be seen anyhow)? Perhaps it makes more sense to scan VMs from
> within the VM.
I do not want to scan it, but I tried out clamav, and
My experience: vmdk-file can't be properly scanned without accounting for
the vmdk base of the file. They are not files Clamav understands. Just as
zip files need special handling, vmdk files need special handling. VMware
has published the specs. I don't have the time/smarts to process vmdk
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
