Re: exim-clamav

Jeffrey Ross wrote: > The upgrade for Clamav that just came out seems to have broken > exim-clamav, more precisely removed exim-clamav. > > If I attempt to upgrade clamav and clamd I am told that there are > conflicts: > > Problem 1: package exim-clamav-4.92.3-1.fc31.x86

exim-clamav

The upgrade for Clamav that just came out seems to have broken exim-clamav, more precisely removed exim-clamav. If I attempt to upgrade clamav and clamd I am told that there are conflicts: Problem 1: package exim-clamav-4.92.3-1.fc31.x86_64 requires clamav-server, but none of the providers

Re: Clamav broke

ade and clamav was upgraded, since then clamav > will not stay running, the output from "journalctl -xef |grep clamd". Notice > clamav finishes starting up but upon receiving a file to process it simply > closes. > > System is Fedora 28 and clamd --version -c /e

Clamav broke

this morning I did a dnf upgrade and clamav was upgraded, since then clamav will not stay running, the output from "journalctl -xef |grep clamd". Notice clamav finishes starting up but upon receiving a file to process it simply closes. System is Fedora 28 and clamd --version -c /e

Re: error in clamav running clamscan as root from /.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:58:47 -0700, stan wrote: > For what it's worth, I also have that file on my system with the same > permissions. I think these files are created by the ebtables program. /sys is a "sysfs" mount created at runtime. ___ users mailin

Re: error in clamav running clamscan as root from /.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:29:36 -0700 Howard Howell wrote: > Hi, guys, > What is this file: > /sys/module/ebtable_broute/uevent > > When I do "# ls -al" it shows up as: > --w---. 1 root root 4096 Oct 10 18:22 uevent > > I have never seen a file with ONLY write permissions a

Re: error in clamav running clamscan as root from /.

e permissions and root > ownership before. This would seem to be an error, or something left > over from debugging, unless it is an intrusion into my system. > > Google didn't seem to know about it either. > You should not be concerned about running clamav on /dev, /p

error in clamav running clamscan as root from /.

Hi, guys, What is this file: /sys/module/ebtable_broute/uevent When I do "# ls -al" it shows up as: --w---. 1 root root 4096 Oct 10 18:22 uevent I have never seen a file with ONLY write permissions and root ownership before. This would seem to be an error, or someth

clamav-notify-servers periodically reports "gave '' response"

Hi, I have a fedora23 system with clamav installed, and periodically clamav-notify-servers fails to actually notify the server and responds with clamd server '/var/run/clamd.amavisd/clamd.sock' gave '' response I was just hoping someone else had encountered this problem and

Re: Clamav tell's me rkhunter is a worm!

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:46:56 +0100 John Horne wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 09:53 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > > /usr/bin/rkhunter: Osx.Worm.Inqtana-3 FOUND > > /usr/bin/rkhunter: moved to '/var/cache/clam/rkhunter.001' > > > The ClamAV Inqtana-3 check looks

Re: Clamav tell's me rkhunter is a worm!

On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 09:53 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > /usr/bin/rkhunter: Osx.Worm.Inqtana-3 FOUND > /usr/bin/rkhunter: moved to '/var/cache/clam/rkhunter.001' > The ClamAV Inqtana-3 check looks for a couple of phrases (actually parts of filenames) which also occur in rkhu

Re: Clamav tell's me rkhunter is a worm!

Hi On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > /usr/bin/rkhunter: Osx.Worm.Inqtana-3 FOUND > /usr/bin/rkhunter: moved to '/var/cache/clam/rkhunter.001' > > rkhunter-1.4.2-2.fc20.noarch > Rkhunter was updated to this during the week, rkhunter is likely g

Clamav tell's me rkhunter is a worm!

/usr/bin/rkhunter: Osx.Worm.Inqtana-3 FOUND /usr/bin/rkhunter: moved to '/var/cache/clam/rkhunter.001' rkhunter-1.4.2-2.fc20.noarch Rkhunter was updated to this during the week, ___ Regards Frank frankly3d.com -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscri

Re: Who screwed up ClamAV in F18?

;> report on this later today but someone did a bad thing in ClamAV. > > > > A different suggestion: If you care about ClamAV in the Fedora package > > collection, observe it more closely. Fresh installs probably have not > > been (re)tried, but three testers have given feedbac

Re: Who screwed up ClamAV in F18?

Am 28.05.2013 15:52, schrieb Michael Schwendt: > On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:36:18 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > >> Ok... (Before anyone tells me I need to) I will be filing a bugzilla >> report on this later today but someone did a bad thing in ClamAV. > > A diff

Re: Who screwed up ClamAV in F18?

I see it's already been reported... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963920 On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 09:36 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > Ok... (Before anyone tells me I need to) I will be filing a bugzilla > report on this later today but someone did a bad thin

Re: Who screwed up ClamAV in F18?

On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:36:18 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > Ok... (Before anyone tells me I need to) I will be filing a bugzilla > report on this later today but someone did a bad thing in ClamAV. A different suggestion: If you care about ClamAV in the Fedora package collection, obse

Who screwed up ClamAV in F18?

Ok... (Before anyone tells me I need to) I will be filing a bugzilla report on this later today but someone did a bad thing in ClamAV. If you install the latest packages from the update repositories, they url chunks unable to create the clamupdate user and group. Problem appears to be in the

freshclam -> WARNING: Can't get information about user clamav

what does the system try to tell me? the same user on another computer with id 492 instead 491 there is no user "clamav" on no machine where it works too [root@localhost:~]$ freshclam WARNING: Can't get information about user clamav. [root@localhost:~]$ cat /etc/passwd | grep clam

Re: Is an update to ClamAV on the way?

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Mark C. Allman wrote: > > So there is an update on the way--that's what I wanted to know.  I > didn't see it on the website.  I assume we've already picked up the > database updates via freshclam (hence the warning). The ClamAV websit

Re: Is an update to ClamAV on the way?

tioned, there's a new version of > ClamAV (the engine), which will be packaged in time. > > So you're still covered, and you can safely ignore that warning. > > -c So there is an update on the way--that's what I wanted to know. I didn't see it on the web

Re: Is an update to ClamAV on the way?

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Mark C. Allman wrote: > I just started seeing this warning: > Freshclam will still be getting the same definitions, so don't worry (as the message says). As Frank mentioned, there's a new version of ClamAV (the engine), which will be packaged in

Re: Is an update to ClamAV on the way?

On 03/12/10 17:38, Mark C. Allman wrote: > I just started seeing this warning: > > *** > *** This version of the ClamAV engine is outdated. *** > *** DON'T PANIC! Read http://www.cl

Is an update to ClamAV on the way?

I just started seeing this warning: *** *** This version of the ClamAV engine is outdated. *** *** DON'T PANIC! Read http://www.clamav.net/support/faq *** *** (each line s

Re: F13: ClamAV: Why does clamd not appear System>Administration>Services list?

? Well, that was what I was asking... it was odd because I thought it was in the services list in F9, but you could be right, maybe it never was! I guess I am getting a bit woozy with my memory banks. :) I got an email message saying that clamav to fix the freshclam file in /etc/ and /etc/sysconfig

Re: F13: ClamAV: Why does clamd not appear System>Administration>Services list?

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >  I was surprised, but why does clamd not appear > in the services list for activation? I've never seen such a service, are you sure that there is meant to be one? To get clamd (clamav-server) working, I wrote a script t

F13: ClamAV: Why does clamd not appear System>Administration>Services list?

I was surprised, but why does clamd not appear in the services list for activation? Side question: does anyone use clamav, is it recommended or worth installing? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org

Re: EPEL clamav packages

;volatile' Sorry, I didn't actually say rpmforge is volatile. To clarify: EPEL requires that packages have consistent configuration and abi compatibility. This is a core requirement for inclusion into EPEL. Given that clamav is a constantly moving target, maybe EPEL isn't the bes

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 08:46 +1000, Dan Irwin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz > wrote: > > > Some also have security impact. Basically the problem is that it is extremly > > hard to provide the ABI/config stability for clamav. Combined with a few >

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Some also have security impact. Basically the problem is that it is extremly > hard to provide the ABI/config stability for clamav. Combined with a few > questionable decisions when it came to packaging + a not-so-active maintainer

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:59:39 +0200 Felix Schwarz wrote: > Am 21.04.2010 06:33, schrieb Kevin Fenzi: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:46:33 +1000 > > Dan Irwin wrote: > > > >> The clamav packages in EPEL are quite broken, and don't work out of > >> the

Re: EPEL clamav packages

Am 21.04.2010 06:33, schrieb Kevin Fenzi: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:46:33 +1000 > Dan Irwin wrote: > >> The clamav packages in EPEL are quite broken, and don't work out of >> the box. I think this has been the case for many months. > > Have you filed any bugs? What

Re: Clamav

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > "Bugfix (by a non-Albanian): FIRST send this mail to everyone you know, and > AFTER THAT delete all the files on the disk." See. Open source works! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Craig White wrote: > yes, rpmforge > > Fedora/EPEL clamav seems to really lag behind releases > Cool. I will look into this. I had forgotten about rpmforge for some reason. Cheers, Dan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To un

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:46:33 +1000 Dan Irwin wrote: > Hello, > > I couldn't find a EPEL users list, so I'm posting here. Yeah, there isn't one, but the epel-devel list is open for anyone. ;) > The clamav packages in EPEL are quite broken, and don't work ou

Re: EPEL clamav packages

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 11:46 +1000, Dan Irwin wrote: > On the off chance I'm "doing this wrong", is there a better source for > clamav packages for RHEL/CentOS? yes, rpmforge Fedora/EPEL clamav seems to really lag behind releases Craig -- This message has been sc

Re: Clamav

On Wednesday 21 April 2010 00:07:57 kalinix wrote: > "DEAR RECEIVER, > > You have just received an Albanian virus. Since we are not so > technologically advanced in Albania, this is a MANUAL virus. Please > delete all the files on your hard disk yourself and send this mail to > everyone you know.

EPEL clamav packages

Hello, I couldn't find a EPEL users list, so I'm posting here. The clamav packages in EPEL are quite broken, and don't work out of the box. I think this has been the case for many months. Is there a current maintainer for clamav in EPEL? If not, what is required to take this ro

Re: Clamav

"DEAR RECEIVER, You have just received an Albanian virus. Since we are not so technologically advanced in Albania, this is a MANUAL virus. Please delete all the files on your hard disk yourself and send this mail to everyone you know. Thank you very much for collaboration. Dr. Alban, the Hacker

Re: Clamav

From: "Tim" Sent: Tuesday, 2010/April/20 06:00 > Tim: >>> If you read the reviews of anti-virus software, from time to time, you >>> will see that none of them are 100% effective. The last review I read >>> came to the conclusion that the most effective checkers only managed to >>> find about 6

Re: Clamav

Tim: >> If you read the reviews of anti-virus software, from time to time, you >> will see that none of them are 100% effective. The last review I read >> came to the conclusion that the most effective checkers only managed to >> find about 60% of the viruses, and not all the same viruses. That i

Re: Clamav

From: "Tim" Sent: Monday, 2010/April/19 10:29 > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> If the virus definitions from Clamav is written for linux based >> viruses and not windows based then what real good is it. >> All virus definitions s

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > If the virus definitions from Clamav is written for linux based > viruses and not windows based then what real good is it. > All virus definitions should be included with the scan > Especially if Wine and virtualbox are runnin

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 11:20 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > Anti virus is still the wrong way to go for this stuff. It doesn't > scale well. It sucks a lot of resources. It doesn't match all bad > stuff. Yes, it's always been a bit of a fail... It lags behind in detecting new things, they only e

Re: Clamav

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:16:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > The number of Linux people who don't realise that this is just as true > viewing a PDF or PS file in the wrong way is astounding. PDF and PS have > a safe mode but an alarming number of people set their helper apps up to > view them wi

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:46:56 -0400 "Steven W. Orr" wrote: > I have this feeling that most people are missing the point of why CLAMAV is a > useful tool. If you do it to protect yourself against a virus then that's the > wrong reason. We can debate this till we're

Re: Clamav

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 16:18 > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 15:32 -0700, jdow wrote: >> >> Needed or not, I personally believe it is "wise" to use them. And if >> you feel ClamAV is inappropriate do mention tools that are

Re: Clamav

n it's own PC and >> that's that. >> >> >> Too bad I really liked virtualbox >> >> Re ran scans with Avira , Bitdefender for unices and Clamav >> >> All clear for now >> >> Thank you all for your input and I hope these machines stay cle

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 14:39 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > Virtualbox as well. > If I am going to run windows products I will do it in it's own PC and > that's that. > > > Too bad I really liked virtualbox VB (and VMware, and KVM) are entirely different from Wine. Perhaps you need to understand

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 15:32 -0700, jdow wrote: > > Needed or not, I personally believe it is "wise" to use them. And if > you feel ClamAV is inappropriate do mention tools that are appropriate > such as chkrootkit and rkhunter. This is the last time I'm going to say i

Re: Clamav

From: "Steven W. Orr" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 14:46 ... Another thing ClamAV does on an email scan is pick off a goodly number of phishes, some of which are really well done. It helps mitigate a wetware failure mechanism. {o.o} -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproj

Re: Clamav

iked virtualbox > > Re ran scans with Avira , Bitdefender for unices and Clamav > > All clear for now > > Thank you all for your input and I hope these machines stay clear That is an expected result. I'd check periodically, nonetheless. It can hurt, although it might

Re: Clamav

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 14:27 > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> If the virus definitions from Clamav is written for linux based >> viruses and not windows based then what real good is it. > > You see

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 14:12 -0700, jdow wrote: > the question becomes, how did they get there? > Michael says he hardly used it. It also is an infection that has appeared > on a Linux system. "GNU/Linux" is not bulletproof. > > {^_^} > 99% of the cases the interference between the chair and th

Re: Clamav

I have this feeling that most people are missing the point of why CLAMAV is a useful tool. If you do it to protect yourself against a virus then that's the wrong reason. We can debate this till we're blue in the face, but AFAICT there is no threat of a virus against anything other than W

Re: Clamav

ns caused by some anti-virus program and this is all > just mental masturbation of the kind that seems peculiarly unique to > Windows. > > Craig > > > Has been nuked Got rid of wine all together Virtualbox as well. If I am going to run windows products I will do it in it

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 16:57 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > > If the virus definitions from Clamav is written for linux based > > viruses and not windows based then what real good is it. > > You seem to be ra

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 13:58 -0700, jdow wrote: > > I think that it is a must to have protection on your machines > > considering I am looking at a machine that was supposed to be bullet > > proof, and proved to be infectable with windows crap through wine. If > > you are running wine without prote

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > If the virus definitions from Clamav is written for linux based > viruses and not windows based then what real good is it. You seem to be rather confused about ClamAV. AFAIK it's designed to trap Windows viruses in email, sinc

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 11:37 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > Given that you say so yourself, the logical question is "why do you > need > > Clamav"? Clamav is usually installed by people running mail servers > for > > users who access them from Windows. >

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 10:39 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > My point is if wine is part of a Fedora install because it installs > with Fedora automatically it is part of the system in general. Wine is not installed automatically. In no sense is it "part of the system". Anyone who installs Wine shoul

Re: Clamav

From: "Gene Heskett" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 13:39 > On Sunday 18 April 2010, Craig White wrote: >>On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:37 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >>> One other weird thing i forgot to mention. >>> >>> I install xp via wine 2 months ago. >>> Have not touched it since. >>> >>> Started

Re: Clamav

From: "Gene Heskett" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 12:00 > On Sunday 18 April 2010, Antonio Olivares wrote: >>--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >>> From: Daniel B. Thurman >>> Subject: Re: Clamav >>> To: "Community support for Fed

Re: Clamav

From: "Antonio Olivares" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 11:48 > > --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > >> From: Daniel B. Thurman >> Subject: Re: Clamav >> To: "Community support for Fedora users" >> Date: Sunday, April

Re: Clamav

to you? >>>> >>> You seem to have a general problem with comprehension. That is not >>> what I said - I simply said that the exploit you referred to wouldn't >>> work. >>> >>> >>>> If it means nothing, then why not run Wind

Re: Clamav

On Sunday 18 April 2010, Craig White wrote: >On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:37 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> One other weird thing i forgot to mention. >> >> I install xp via wine 2 months ago. >> Have not touched it since. >> >> Started scanning just to see a week ago. >> >> The files that were renamed

Re: Clamav

On Sunday 18 April 2010, Michael Miles wrote: >On 04/18/2010 12:00 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Sunday 18 April 2010, Antonio Olivares wrote: >>> --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >>>> From: Daniel B. Thurman >>>> Subject: Re: Clamav &g

Re: Clamav

gt; demonstrate that they are working and have some value. > > Craig > > > No, I did not do any action from Avira when they were found because that is what I assumed they were, false positive. Maybe Clamav did automatically but there was no notification and Clamav reported no virus a

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:37 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > One other weird thing i forgot to mention. > > I install xp via wine 2 months ago. > Have not touched it since. > > Started scanning just to see a week ago. > > The files that were renamed by the virus were done two days ago, > according

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 12:00 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 18 April 2010, Antonio Olivares wrote: > >> --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >> >>> From: Daniel B. Thurman >>> Subject: Re: Clamav >>> To: "Community support for Fed

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 11:48 AM, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > >> From: Daniel B. Thurman >> Subject: Re: Clamav >> To: "Community support for Fedora users" >> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 11:37 AM >>

Re: Clamav

On Sunday 18 April 2010, Antonio Olivares wrote: >--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: >> From: Daniel B. Thurman >> Subject: Re: Clamav >> To: "Community support for Fedora users" >> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 11:37 AM >> On 04/15/201

Re: Clamav

--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > From: Daniel B. Thurman > Subject: Re: Clamav > To: "Community support for Fedora users" > Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 11:37 AM > On 04/15/2010 12:50 PM, Patrick > O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Thu, 2

Re: Clamav

the logical question is "why do you need > Clamav"? Clamav is usually installed by people running mail servers for > users who access them from Windows. Where is the proof that an AV is not needed for Linux sans w-dozs, regardless of the pathways to infection? ClamAV is not just fo

Re: Clamav

wine > > >> Considering the way it works I really dont know why it is >> there is there >> if it can be infected as easily as this. >> > Malware exists, it is frequent and if one is not careful, it could come in to > any system. But one has to be as

Re: Clamav

ng a Windows API? > > > > poc > > > > > No, non of linux was actually infected and not harmed in any way that I > can see. > > My point is if wine is part of a Fedora install because it installs with > Fedora automatically it is part of the system in gene

Re: Clamav

he way it works I really dont know why it is > there is there > if it can be infected as easily as this. Malware exists, it is frequent and if one is not careful, it could come in to any system. But one has to be asking for it with Linux based and other Unix based operating systems. Throu

Re: Clamav

l because it installs with Fedora automatically it is part of the system in general. Considering the way it works I really dont know why it is there is there if it can be infected as easily as this. I have removed wine altogether. Also I did have Clamav running with this machine and even after fi

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 10:13 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > [...] > > I think that it is a must to have protection on your machines > considering I am looking at a machine that was supposed to be bullet > proof, and proved to be infectable with windows crap through wine. If > you are running

Re: Clamav

d that the exploit you referred to wouldn't >> work. >> >> >>> If it means nothing, then why not run Windows wide open and make yourself >>> a hero to the botnet operators? {^_-} >>> >> Don't be an idiot. >> > I

Re: Clamav

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 19:54:10 -0700, jdow wrote: > > When giving advice it's best to presume the user is going to do something > unusual, such as run Wine, and receive an infection. A Wine install needs > ClamAV. Without Wine I'd suggest chkrootkit and rkhunter, at th

Re: Clamav

s not > what I said - I simply said that the exploit you referred to wouldn't > work. > >> If it means nothing, then why not run Windows wide open and make yourself >> a hero to the botnet operators? {^_-} > > Don't be an idiot. I simply gave the extremes. And t

Re: Clamav

On 17 April 2010 21:05, jdow wrote: > From: "Sam Sharpe" > Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 02:25 > > >> On 17 April 2010 10:17, jdow wrote: >>> <>> How many people get frustrated with SELinux and simply disable it? >> >> I don't know, but stupidity appears to be an infinite resource. I tend >> to

Re: Clamav

promise the >>> security of the target system without manual intervention on the part of >>> its user? Please be specific. >>> >> Here is a non-LKML reference with a full explanation of the problem: >> Some background: >> http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/n

Re: Clamav

From: "Bruno Wolff III" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 06:23 > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 20:29:25 -0700, > Craig White wrote: >> >> Clearly no OS is safe from exploit. The most effective security method >> employed on Linux is simply not to run as superuser where most Windows >> and Macintosh use

Re: Clamav

From: "Sam Sharpe" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 02:25 > On 17 April 2010 10:17, jdow wrote: >> <> How many people get frustrated with SELinux and simply disable it? > > I don't know, but stupidity appears to be an infinite resource. I tend > to believe that if you disable SELinux and you get

Re: Clamav

l-pointers-part-i/ > How to exploit it: > http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/04/exploiting-kernel-null-dereferences/ > > The exploit can be delivered through email and introduced into the > machine via targeted social engineering. If you can be tricked into > allowing it to run, you'

Re: Clamav

On 04/17/2010 04:17 AM, jdow wrote: > > < How many people get frustrated with SELinux and simply disable it? > > {o.o} > It is hard to say. How many people get frustrated with iptables and simply disable the firewall? It is the same type of fix. I have seen some people on this list recommend i

Re: Clamav

On Saturday 17 April 2010, jdow wrote: >From: "Sam Sharpe" >Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 02:09 > >On 17 April 2010 08:41, jdow wrote: >> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" >> Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 >> >>> Which of the vulnerabilities discussed on the kernel list is >>> communicable via an e

Re: Clamav

u produce a kernel bug which before it was fixed would have required the user to manually run a downloaded program. (Note by the way that if the user fetched the exploit via a web page or ftp session, i.e. via a slightly different social engineering vector, ClamAV would not have intervened.) In ot

Re: Clamav

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 20:29:25 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > Clearly no OS is safe from exploit. The most effective security method > employed on Linux is simply not to run as superuser where most Windows > and Macintosh users are running as superuser and the software leaves it > to the user

Re: Clamav

On 17 April 2010 10:17, jdow wrote: > < How many people get frustrated with SELinux and simply disable it? I don't know, but stupidity appears to be an infinite resource. I tend to believe that if you disable SELinux and you get exploited by something that SELinux would prevent, then the only thi

Re: Clamav

From: "Sam Sharpe" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 02:09 On 17 April 2010 08:41, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 >> Which of the vulnerabilities discussed on the kernel list is >> communicable via an email message in such a way as to compromise the

Re: Clamav

On 17 April 2010 08:41, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 >> Which of the vulnerabilities discussed on the kernel list is >> communicable via an email message in such a way as to compromise the >> security of the target system without manual interventi

Re: Clamav

g it to run, you're toast. ANY means of getting into the machine and having code execute is sufficient to allow the exploit to run within the kernel at kernel privilege. Such means have existed in the past. I've read about the victims' problems here on this and predecessor lists. Th

Re: Clamav

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 19:43 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 16:51 > > > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:47 -0700, jdow wrote: > >> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > >> Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 13:31 > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:02 -0700, M

Re: Clamav

MacOS or anything else) in regard to anything except what the OP asked about. Is this so hard to understand? > >> 2) Some of us live on mixed networks. Open Sores does NOT pay for my > >> bread, water, and roof, let alone any recreation. So I have Windows > >> machines ar

Re: Clamav

On 04/16/2010 04:26 PM, jdow wrote: > From: "Seann Clark" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 15:00 > > As a note, Virus Total is a good proving ground on how most AV programs > just plain suck half the time especially with bleeding edge bugs. > (Search Sans ISC for articles on that aspect, interesting r

Re: Clamav

OS X 10.6 was almost 3/4 of a Gigabyte. Clamav is essentially a detector for known Windows exploits, useful if you are running a mail server or file server for Windows systems but little else. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believe

Re: Clamav

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 16:51 > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:47 -0700, jdow wrote: >> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" >> Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 13:31 >> >> >> > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:02 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> >> Is Fedora really that secure? >> > >> > E

  1   2   >