Hello,
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
George Chelidze wrote:
Seems that the scanner at sendvirus.cgi uses the DetectBrokenExecutables
option while "clamav online scanner" - not.
So is it a bad idea to enable the same in online scanner? It will save
a little bandwidth...
Bad, because broken executables
George Chelidze wrote:
Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 at 11:48:35 +0300, George Chelidze wrote:
Hello,
I have just found a message which was trapped with sanitizer because
of dangerous attachment (message.scr) and I thought it was a new
worm. I checked it against clamav online scanner
George Chelidze wrote:
Seems that the scanner at sendvirus.cgi uses the DetectBrokenExecutables
option while "clamav online scanner" - not.
So is it a bad idea to enable the same in online scanner? It will save
a little bandwidth...
Bad, because broken executables are not 100% virus.
Also bad, b
Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 at 11:48:35 +0300, George Chelidze wrote:
Hello,
I have just found a message which was trapped with sanitizer because of
dangerous attachment (message.scr) and I thought it was a new worm. I
checked it against clamav online scanner which reported the fol
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 at 11:48:35 +0300, George Chelidze wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just found a message which was trapped with sanitizer because of
> dangerous attachment (message.scr) and I thought it was a new worm. I
> checked it against clamav online scanner which reported the following:
>
>
Hello,
I have just found a message which was trapped with sanitizer because of
dangerous attachment (message.scr) and I thought it was a new worm. I
checked it against clamav online scanner which reported the following:
ClamAV 0.80/572/Wed Nov 3 11:48:18 2004
ClamAV scans the file ...
Clamav-Out
