Re: [Clamav-users] 0.90RC1.1 update?

2006-10-16 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
CC wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having some trouble with 0.90RC1.1 update. Regardless > of how I install it (I've installed previous versions > using the same technique) and it still says I'm using > 0.88.4. > Actually it says you're using 0.90RC1.1. > It gives me : > > ClamAV update process started at Tu

Re: [Clamav-users] Problem Clamav 0.9 RC2 - Solaris 10

2006-10-31 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
Clamav wrote: > Hello, > I have problems installing Clamav 0.9 RC2 on Solaris 10. Is is a > completely fresh Solaris 10 installation. Therefore I downloaded first > the GMP package (gmp-4.2.1) and compiled and installed it with: > > ./configure ABI=32 > make > make check > make install > > All the

Re: [Clamav-users] Clamscan on HP-UX

2006-11-17 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
John Gibbons wrote: > I can't seem to find any best practices on scanning file systems. I am > running a test scan on a 4 gig file system with mostly Oracle database > files I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. >From http://clamav.net/abstract.html#pagestart "Clam AntiVirus is a GPL

Re: [Clamav-users] Clamscan on HP-UX

2006-11-17 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
Dennis Peterson wrote: > Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > Database objects can include blobs (binary large objects). These can > be files including executables, documents, other databases. They can > have viruses. In some instances the blob in an internal representation > and can be diff

Re: [Clamav-users] automatic version update

2007-01-14 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
John Rudd wrote: > And, I'm happy to _write_ such a beast. Very good! > I'm not just requesting it from someone else. I'm just saying, that's > what the OP's request brings to my mind. The main thing that keeps me > from writing it is: that lack of a "-current" copy of the download > archive. A

Re: [Clamav-users] automatic version update

2007-01-14 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
John Rudd wrote: > ooh! That is a good resource. Thank you! > > Do you know what the other fields in the TXT record mean? > Let's see ... $ host -t txt current.cvd.clamav.net current.cvd.clamav.net descriptive text "0.88.7:42:2444:1168839173:1" - First field is current stable version. - Second f

[Clamav-users] INFO: 0.90rc3 on Solaris8

2007-02-07 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
To compile 0.90rc3 on Solaris 8, you'll need the following files : /usr/include/stdint.h /usr/include/sys/stdint.h Get it from Solaris 10. CVS development version works fine even without those headers. Regards, Fajar ___ Help us build a comprehensive

Re: [Clamav-users] Mandrake....

2007-02-13 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
Michael Fernández M. wrote: > > yesterday, in netocat.org i got ClamAV 0.88.5 for Mdk 9.2 and it works > well. It isn`t the last version but is something > > If you have access to the SRPM, you can easily change that to the latest stable (0.88.7). Just change a line in .spec (the one that s

Re: [clamav-users] Vulnerability Reporting?

2019-08-06 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha via clamav-users
OP is probably looking for http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=clamav ... and something equivalent of xen-announce (the 'security advisories' part) from https://xenproject.org/help/mailing-list/ (which doesn't exist for clamav?) -- Fajar On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:42 PM Al Varnell via

Re: [clamav-users] Vulnerability Reporting?

2019-08-07 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha via clamav-users
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:23 PM Henrik Hoeg Thomsen1 via clamav-users < clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> wrote: > Running on SUSE sles 12 sp2 servers. > > > rpm -qa | grep clamav > clamav-0.100.3-33.21.1.x86_64 > > This is what i call the engine. The actual version af clamav proccess > active on my

Re: [clamav-users] Update policy for clamd@.service

2019-08-26 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha via clamav-users
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:18 PM Herbert via clamav-users < clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > System Fedora 5.2.9-200.fc30.x86_64 > ClamAv 0.101.4 > > > I wonder why a DNF update changes my customized > /usr/lib/systemd/clam@,service file. > > ... because you shouldn't have modifi

<    1   2   3   4   5