; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: clamav and magic byte
> * Andrey Bayora:
>
> >> "...Andrey Bayora just describes one way to create new viruses, there
are
> > countless others."
> >
> > Please, read h
* Andrey Bayora:
> OK, last try to convince you... :)
>
>> It's not a bug, it's a design property of such ssystems
>
> In other words: it is a design error (feature).
Sure, if you want to put it that way.
> As I point out my whitepaper, the "changed" viruses STILL detected with the
> SAME signat
* Andrey Bayora:
>> "...Andrey Bayora just describes one way to create new viruses, there are
> countless others."
>
> Please, read http://www.securityelf.org/magicbyteadv.html - there
> are 13 CVE numbers issued for this BUG.
Often, CVE numbers are assigned because vendors release updates, not
t
Hi Florian,
> "...Andrey Bayora just describes one way to create new viruses, there are
countless others."
Please, read http://www.securityelf.org/magicbyteadv.html - there are 13 CVE
numbers issued for this BUG.
If it is not - why AV vendors issues patches for this "issue"?
The "new viruses" op
* Geoff Crompton:
> Anyone know if clamav is vulnerable to the magic byte detection evasion
> issue discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/15189?
>
> Or alternatively, can anyone work out if it is vulnerable?
It is vulnerable only in the sense that it doesn't detect viruses for
which there
Anyone know if clamav is vulnerable to the magic byte detection evasion
issue discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/15189?
Or alternatively, can anyone work out if it is vulnerable?
--
Geoff Crompton
Debian System Administrator
Strategic Data
+61 3 9340 9000
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
6 matches
Mail list logo
