I just upgraded my clamav installation from 0.75 to 0.80 on my RHEL 3.0
server. After merging my configuration changes, clamd is running fine.
However, I'm running into problems with freshclam:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# freshclam --datadir="/var/amavis/clamav"
--log=/var/amavis/clamav/logs/fre
Jason Dixon wrote:
> ERROR: Please edit the example config file /etc/freshclam.conf.
Comment out the example line?
> ERROR: Can't open /var/amavis/clamav/logs/freshclam.log in append mode
> (check permissions!).
Whom are the user and group in clamd.conf?
Matt
___
What exact version of zlib do you have installed? Upgrade to zlib 1.2.2.
1.1.4 is installed
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Hi all,
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever in a
technical sense.
How can I configure ClamAV not to try to detect phishing and o
Julian Mehnle wrote:
> How can I configure ClamAV not to try to detect phishing and other
> social engineering attacks?
Why? Your prerogative, obviously, but I am just curious.
Matt
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
On Nov 14, 2004, at 7:35 AM, Matt wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
ERROR: Please edit the example config file /etc/freshclam.conf.
Comment out the example line?
LOL!
Thanks Matt, that fixed it. /me smacks his head in disbelief.
--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
_
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:58:53 +0100
"Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
> messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
> Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoe
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever in a
technical sense.
I'm certainly *very* happy that ClamAV team have added more phishing
de
Steve Basford wrote:
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever in a
technical sense.
I'm certainly *very* happy that ClamAV team have
Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > How can I configure ClamAV not to try to detect phishing and other
> > social engineering attacks?
>
> Why? Your prerogative, obviously, but I am just curious.
For three reasons:
1. I consider filtering technically harmful messages for my
On the issue of manually reviewing the mails to submitisn't this the
purpose of the quarantine directory? When it detects a phishing malware,
look at the file in the quarantine directory.
On Sunday 14 November 2004 8:57 am, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Julian Me
John Jolet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the issue of manually reviewing the mails to submitisn't this the
> purpose of the quarantine directory? When it detects a phishing
> malware, look at the file in the quarantine directory.
I also don't believe in quarantine directories, which have to b
On Nov 14, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Steve Basford wrote:
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever in
a
technical sense.
I'm certainly *very*
On Nov 14, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Steve Basford wrote:
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever
in a
technical sense.
On Nov 14, 2004, at 10:01 AM, John Jolet wrote:
On the issue of manually reviewing the mails to submitisn't this
the
purpose of the quarantine directory? When it detects a phishing
malware,
look at the file in the quarantine directory.
I think he's thinking that this is more time and labor
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 09:03:43PM -0500, Joe Maimon said:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> >>On Thursday 11 November 2004 05:56 pm, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >>
> >>>So, when start-stop-daemon (or daemon) sends a kill signal, it ends up
> >>>signalling the wrong thread, and it takes a long time for the signal
Joe Maimon wrote:
I'm certainly *very* happy that ClamAV team have added more phishing
detections (thanks Trog et all).
Yes, you're correct it's social engineering but it doesn't stop
users clicking on the links
and downloading the keylogging trojan, from the remote site that the
phish email
BitFuzzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So blocking [social engineering attacks] can only be seen as a good
> thing.
I disagree, and I already explained why.
I don't even request that ClamAV completely stop detecting such stuff, I
just request that I have the option of disabling it.
On Sunday 14 November 2004 9:17 am, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> John Jolet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On the issue of manually reviewing the mails to submitisn't this the
> > purpose of the quarantine directory? When it detects a phishing
> > malware, look at the file in the quarantine directory.
John Jolet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sunday 14 November 2004 9:17 am, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > [...] I outright reject unwanted messages during the SMTP transaction,
> > so the sender gets notified. [...]
>
> I would agree with that practice, except in this day and age of spoofed
> addresses an
John Jolet wrote:
On Sunday 14 November 2004 9:17 am, Julian Mehnle wrote:
John Jolet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My
users can see what messages have been rejected by skimming over a list of
recently rejected messages once or twice a week (see an example here[1]).
This practice has proven to work well
Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
> For three reasons:
>
> 1. I consider filtering technically harmful messages for my users
> acceptable, but I think filtering social engineering to be
> censorship. I would rather educate my users.
You really must be a patient and virtuous person, if you can su
> BitFuzzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So blocking [social engineering attacks] can only be seen as a good
> > thing.
>
> I disagree, and I already explained why.
>
> I don't even request that ClamAV completely stop detecting such stuff, I
> just request that I have the option of disabling it.
To
This is a "me too". I am ABSOLUTELY in love with ClamAV due to the fact
it has gone beyond what most commercial AV players are doing, and is
incorporating scanning for phishing and spyware.
If you follow the industry, you will see that most AV vendors are
bringing out *separate* products to det
24 matches
Mail list logo
