I totally agree, but I think after you pointed out 4(a), all the other
issues cited simply makes further discussion pedantic.
-gc
Paul Kosinski wrote:
> 0. The tone of the original posting, especially the subject line,
> is quite unprofessional.
>
> 1. The race condition seems easy enough to fi
Gregory Carter wrote:
> I totally agree, but I think after you pointed out 4(a), all the other
> issues cited simply makes further discussion pedantic.
Well, I'd like to add a remark. The discussion about all these issues
isn't pedantic, as long as...
...all of us have in mind that the goal of
Hi all,
On Sun Dec 30 there was a post to the Full Disclosure mailing list
regarding several vulnerabilities in ClamAV 0.92. I haven't seen any
discussion on the clamav-devel list and can't seem to find a Bugzilla
entry for these issues.
The authors seem to have identified a race condition in cli
I just saw the existing thread on clamav-users, my bad! Sorry to
rehash the obvious. Please disregard...
c0uch
On Jan 7, 2008 4:23 PM, c0uchw4rrior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun Dec 30 there was a post to the Full Disclosure mailing list
> regarding several vulnerabilities in Cl
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, c0uchw4rrior wrote:
> On Sun Dec 30 there was a post to the Full Disclosure mailing list
> regarding several vulnerabilities in ClamAV 0.92. I haven't seen any
> discussion on the clamav-devel list and can't seem to find a Bugzilla
> entry for these issues.
Check the archives.
Good Afternoon List,
I would like to know is there a way to reconfigure clam so that is does
not look on an outside to pull down virus definitions with the Unix
Environment?
Respectfully Yours
Charles McKee
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV gu
Charles Mckee wrote:
> Good Afternoon List,
>
> I would like to know is there a way to reconfigure clam so that is does
> not look on an outside to pull down virus definitions with the Unix
> Environment?
>
The "freshclam" program is the part of clamav that retrieves
updates. See "man freshc
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Gregory Carter wrote:
>> I totally agree, but I think after you pointed out 4(a), all the other
>> issues cited simply makes further discussion pedantic.
>
> Well, I'd like to add a remark. The discussion about all these issues
> isn't pedantic, as long as...