On 2011-03-10 00:03, Mark wrote:
> I'm still running 0.96. No errors, but I did notice my clamd process shot
> up in memory to about 5x its normal size (it has "Loaded 915868
> signatures.") What's up with that? Did a whole lot of new sigs get added
> overnight?
That is quite a normal number of si
al Message-
From: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net
[mailto:clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net] On Behalf Of Joel Esler
Sent: maandag 28 februari 2011 14:00
To: ClamAV users ML
Subject: Re: [clamav-users] daily database broken again
As Edwin said the last time "this" happened.
On 03/05/2011 03:11 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
On 3/5/11 8:36 AM, Jim Preston wrote:
You have missed the point, my system does serve my needs to the
extent that
upgrading the OS is not worth the benefit till now. A major cause is
the lack of
a clean upgrade path from the early FC versions.
On 03/05/2011 02:51 PM, Steve Holdoway wrote:
I think that you're so outside anything that could remotely be called
Fedora to become irrelevant. FC7 is way out of support, and all Fedoras
are only designed to be short term desktop os's anyway.
So all of your support is manual, and you've lost
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Though there is no free VM tool for Mac - Fusion is dirt cheap.
VirtualBox is free and runs on Mac, it can even host Mac vm's.
/peter
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http:/
On 3/5/11 8:36 AM, Jim Preston wrote:
You have missed the point, my system does serve my needs to the extent that
upgrading the OS is not worth the benefit till now. A major cause is the lack of
a clean upgrade path from the early FC versions. The recommended method was a
clean install. Since v
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 09:36 -0700, Jim Preston wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 04:31 PM, Jerry wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:05:57 -0700
> > Jim Preston articulated:
> >
> > A system should serve your needs, not its. It sounds to me like you
> > have become a slave to yours. Any properly maintained sys
On 03/04/2011 04:31 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:05:57 -0700
Jim Preston articulated:
A system should serve your needs, not its. It sounds to me like you
have become a slave to yours. Any properly maintained system needs some
degree of personalizing; ie, configuration. However, if yo
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:05:57 -0700
Jim Preston articulated:
>
>
> On 02/28/2011 08:56 PM, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
> > It personally wouldn't matter to me as I am running 0.97 on my
> > servers. So why am I fussing?
> >
> > Last April when 0.96 was rolled out, some of out servers couldn't
> > be upg
On 02/28/2011 09:39 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/28/2011 10:03 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
version?
In other words, the entry is tagged with "min 0.98.2", and if you're
On 02/28/2011 08:56 PM, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
It personally wouldn't matter to me as I am running 0.97 on my servers.
So why am I fussing?
Last April when 0.96 was rolled out, some of out servers couldn't be upgraded.
Fortunately, by August the ClamAV Team fixed whatever was broken in the firs
On 03/01/2011 12:59 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Thats an unsafe question to answer.
No matter how its answered, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Its like "Have you quit beating your wife?"
Yes - You were beating her.
No - You are beating her.
Yes, that is why you say you have just reduced the b
On 02/28/2011 09:29 AM, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
* Török Edwin wrote:
but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than
actually detecting malware.
0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working.
I will concede that its not the best solution, but its better than
* Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just an idea for those insisting on running old versions: After some
> simple tests I believe it's possible to get your own "database check"
> even on versions older than 0.96.x (4?). Have freshclam update the
> signatures into a testing directory, not t
Il 01/03/2011 08:59, Simon Hobson ha scritto:
I too am grateful to the ClamAV team - but I also sometimes think
their attitude to users "lacks sensitivity" at times.
I agree. Upgrading may depends on a lot of steps, which may be not easy
to repeat sometimes, and which may be delayed to bet
Nathan Gibbs wrote:
> I am not aware of the team issuing a new major version number that they
> then break in a few months with a new major version update.
0.95.x was the latest version less than a year ago. To me, it seems a little
soon to EOL it.
> At some point the end user has to a
Hi,
just an idea for those insisting on running old versions: After some
simple tests I believe it's possible to get your own "database check"
even on versions older than 0.96.x (4?). Have freshclam update the
signatures into a testing directory, not the "real" clamav database dir
(that's what Dat
* Jerry wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:29:17 -0500 Nathan Gibbs
> articulated:
>
>> A flag day now and then (0.94.x DB issue) is OK, but not as a regularly
>> scheduled event. Whats the point of putting the latest Clamav on a system
>> when the Dev team is going to break it in a matter of months
On 2/28/11 7:30 AM, Török Edwin wrote:
Maybe we should tag all our new signatures with 0.96.4+ (ldb, bytecode,
and ndb at least)?
Of course that means that 0.95 would be even less effective at detecting
malware than it already is (no VI/IDB/CBC support there), but apparently
people running 0.95
* Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2011-02-28 18:29, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
>> * Török Edwin wrote:
>>> but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than
>>> actually detecting malware.
>>>
>> 0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working.
>
> Fair enough.
> Would it be OK wi
On 2/28/2011 12:17 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> ClamAV 0.96 was released in April of 2010. How much time do you need to
>> schedule an upgrade? If my servers were still running an old version a
>> month after an update, I would consider it a
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> ClamAV 0.96 was released in April of 2010. How much time do you need to
> schedule an upgrade? If my servers were still running an old version a
> month after an update, I would consider it a serious problem. AV
> programs need to be kept u
On 2011-02-28 18:29, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
> * Török Edwin wrote:
>> but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than
>> actually detecting malware.
>>
>
> 0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working.
Fair enough.
Would it be OK with you if 0.95 only got .hdb(MD
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:29:17 -0500
Nathan Gibbs articulated:
> * Török Edwin wrote:
> > but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working"
> > than actually detecting malware.
> >
>
> 0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working.
>
> I will concede that its not the
On 2/28/2011 10:03 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
> optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
> version?
>
> In other words, the entry is tagged with "min 0.98.2", and if you're
> running 0.98.1, it ignores it, but com
* Török Edwin wrote:
> but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than
> actually detecting malware.
>
0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working.
I will concede that its not the best solution, but its better than no solution.
My opinion on reasonable back
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:03:34 -0900 Royce Williams
> wrote:
> > For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
> > optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
> > version?
On 28.02.11 16:14, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> Such mechanisms are already available in ClamAV.
On 2011-02-28 17:14, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:03:34 -0900 Royce Williams
> wrote:
>> For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
>> optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
>> version?
>
> Such mechanisms are already available in ClamAV.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:03:34 -0900 Royce Williams
wrote:
> For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
> optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
> version?
Such mechanisms are already available in ClamAV. Also freshclam >=
0.96.2 will never install a data
On 2/28/2011 9:51 AM, Webstar VN Admin wrote:
> I got problem too:( *It has happened twice this month.*
>
> Mon Feb 28 22:50:16 2011 -> SelfCheck: Database modification detected.
> Forcing reload.
> Mon Feb 28 22:50:16 2011 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
> Mon Feb 28 22:50:16 2011 -> ER
For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
version?
In other words, the entry is tagged with "min 0.98.2", and if you're
running 0.98.1, it ignores it, but complains loudly so that people
know that they're running l
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Royce Williams
wrote:
> For future-proofing purposes, would it be feasible to enable
> optionally tagging a signature with its minimum supported ClamAV
> version?
Given that this would represent a db change that has its own
compatibility issues, would it be feasib
av.net
> Envoyé: Lundi 28 Février 2011 15h11:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin /
> Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
> Objet: Re: [clamav-users] daily database broken again
>
> On Monday, February 28, 2011 02:36:54 pm Joel Esler wrote:
> > Jesse,
> >
> > Try now,
yep Works for me too
Thanks again
antoine
- Mail Original -
De: "Ben Lambrey"
À: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Envoyé: Lundi 28 Février 2011 15h11:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne /
Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Re: [clamav-users] daily database broken again
12790 should fix it.
J
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Hank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:36:54AM -0500, Joel Esler wrote:
>
>> Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
>> side.
>
> I tried
>
> File: daily.cld
> Build time: 28 Feb 2011
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:36:54AM -0500, Joel Esler wrote:
> Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
> side.
I tried
File: daily.cld
Build time: 28 Feb 2011 07:57 -0500
Version: 12789
with ClamAV 0.95.3
Didn't work :-(
LibClamAV Error: Incorrect offs
On Monday, February 28, 2011 01:43:43 pm Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> today I got this error again:
>
> LibClamAV Error: Incorrect offset 'VI' in subsignature id 0 for signature
> type-1 LibClamAV Error: Problem parsing database at line 116
> LibClamAV Error: Can't load
> /tmp/clama
On Monday, February 28, 2011 02:36:54 pm Joel Esler wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
> side.
>
Joel,
This seems to work. Thank you
--
b...@lambrey.net
___
Help us build a comprehensive C
Hello folks,
this also seems to apply on our customer machines.
Andreas
Am 28.02.2011 14:36, schrieb Joel Esler:
Jesse,
Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
side.
--
-
Securepoint Gm
Joel,
That update appears to work well on my end. Thanks!
"Joel Esler" said:
> Jesse,
>
> Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
> side.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joel
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Jesse Klint wrote:
>
>> # freshclam
>> ClamAV update process
Jesse,
Try now, Edwin just released a new version and he says that it works on his
side.
Thanks.
Joel
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Jesse Klint wrote:
> # freshclam
> ClamAV update process started at Mon Feb 28 08:04:06 2011
> WARNING: Your ClamAV installation is OUTDATED!
> WARNING: Local ve
We are working on it now. We'll let the list know when it's ready.
J
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Jesse Klint wrote:
> # freshclam
> ClamAV update process started at Mon Feb 28 08:04:06 2011
> WARNING: Your ClamAV installation is OUTDATED!
> WARNING: Local version: 0.95.3 Recommended version:
# freshclam
ClamAV update process started at Mon Feb 28 08:04:06 2011
WARNING: Your ClamAV installation is OUTDATED!
WARNING: Local version: 0.95.3 Recommended version: 0.97
DON'T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq
main.cld is up to date (version: 53, sigs: 846214, f-level: 53, builder:
As Edwin said the last time "this" happened. Unfortunately, we support the
current version and one back with the ClamAV DB (Edwin correct me if I am wrong
at any point), and with the rollout of 0.97, that means that 0.97 and 0.96 are
the supported versions.
New detection features are rolled ou
Yes,
ClamAV 0.95.3/12788/Mon Feb 28 06:55:40 2011
"Joel Esler" said:
> Jesse, are you also running 0.95?
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Jesse Klint wrote:
>
>> We are seeing a similar issue here. A forced freshclam pulls down the same
>> corrupted update. Patiently waiting for a fix
Jesse, are you also running 0.95?
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Jesse Klint wrote:
> We are seeing a similar issue here. A forced freshclam pulls down the same
> corrupted update. Patiently waiting for a fix
>
> "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" said:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> today I got this error agai
We are seeing a similar issue here. A forced freshclam pulls down the same
corrupted update. Patiently waiting for a fix
"Matus UHLAR - fantomas" said:
> Hello,
>
> today I got this error again:
>
> LibClamAV Error: Incorrect offset 'VI' in subsignature id 0 for signature
> type-1
> LibC
Hello,
today I got this error again:
LibClamAV Error: Incorrect offset 'VI' in subsignature id 0 for signature type-1
LibClamAV Error: Problem parsing database at line 116
LibClamAV Error: Can't load
/tmp/clamav-61d6e84956044ced93fd4ddfd974c4ca/daily.ldb: Malformed database
Yes, this server run
48 matches
Mail list logo
