Re: Clamav broke

I downgraded to clamd 0.99.4-3 and it works. so something broke in 0.100.0-2 Suggestions on how to track down the failure cause to see if it is a configuration error on my part or a broken package/dependency? Jeff On 2018-06-12 13:46, Jeffrey Ross wrote: > this morning I did a dnf upgrade a

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 for a couple of phrases (actually >

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 rkhunter as part of its Inq

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

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: 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.

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 should be included with the scan >> Espe

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 running on a linux sy

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 blue in the face, but AFAICT ther

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 appropriate >> such as chkrootkit and rkhunter.

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 03:36 PM, jdow wrote: > From: "Michael Miles" > Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 14:39 > > ... > > >> 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's own PC and >> that's that. >> >> >> Too bad I really

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 it: I wasn't then and am not n

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.fedoraproject.org To unsubsc

Re: Clamav

From: "Michael Miles" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 14:39 ... > 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's own PC and > that's that. > > > Too bad I really liked virtualbox > > Re ran scans with Avira , Bitde

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 seem to be rather confused about ClamAV.

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 Windows. I

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 02:28 PM, Craig White wrote: > 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 thr

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 rather confused about ClamAV.

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, since these are th

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. > Where is the proof that an AV is not nee

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

From: "Michael Miles" Sent: Sunday, 2010/April/18 10:13 > On 04/17/2010 07:54 PM, jdow wrote: >> From: "Sam Sharpe" >> Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 13:20 >> >> >> >>> On 17 April 2010 21:05, jdow wrote: >>> From: "Sam Sharpe" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 02:25 > O

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

On 04/18/2010 12:53 PM, 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 r

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

On 04/15/2010 12:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > >> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really >> do not know enough about this OS >> > Given that you say so yourself, the logical question is "why do yo

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 10:54 AM, Antonio Olivares wrote: So the myth is just that, a myth >>> IOW, when you run Windows apps, you get infected. >>> >> Where's the myth? Did >> >>> your Linux system crash? Were any of your system files >>> >> corrupted? Was >>

Re: Clamav

On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 10:39 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > On 04/18/2010 10:22 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > 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 a

Re: Clamav

> >> So the myth is just that, a myth > >> > > IOW, when you run Windows apps, you get infected. > Where's the myth? Did > > your Linux system crash? Were any of your system files > corrupted? Was > > any of your non-Wine data leaked? Was your root > password compromised? > > Did anything hap

Re: Clamav

On 04/18/2010 10:22 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > 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

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

On 04/17/2010 07:54 PM, jdow wrote: > From: "Sam Sharpe" > Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 13:20 > > > >> 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: >

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 the least. I > have seen t

Re: Clamav

From: "Sam Sharpe" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 13:20 > 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

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

From: "Michael Miles" Sent: Saturday, 2010/April/17 09:02 > On 04/17/2010 12:41 AM, jdow wrote: >> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" >> Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 19:43 -0700, jdow wrote: >>> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 16

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

On 04/17/2010 12:41 AM, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 > > > >> 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

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

On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 00:41 -0700, jdow wrote: > > 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 intervention on the > part of > > its user? Please be specific. >

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

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 22:49 > 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, 2

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

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 19:37 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 16:50 > > > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:39 -0700, jdow wrote: > >> 1) I have seen at least one active exploit, I fortunately recognized > >> myself, for Linux in my years with computers. (l

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

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 19:37 -0700, jdow wrote: > You also said Linux machines were perfectly safe. And I reacted by > saying I don't believe that. Active exploits exist for Linux. Some are > transmitted by email and activated in one of the more or less standard > ways. > > People said MacOS was p

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

Re: Clamav

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 16:50 > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:39 -0700, jdow wrote: >> 1) I have seen at least one active exploit, I fortunately recognized >> myself, for Linux in my years with computers. (longer than >> yours, sonny, although I took a 6 year hiatus i

Re: Clamav

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? > > > > Even if we limit the discussion to email viruses, that's a very complex >

Re: Clamav

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:39 -0700, jdow wrote: > 1) I have seen at least one active exploit, I fortunately recognized > myself, for Linux in my years with computers. (longer than > yours, sonny, although I took a 6 year hiatus in there. {^_-}) (Even > my beloved Amiga (made some money off that sys

Re: Clamav

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 read if you have time to kill) ~Seann <<

Re: Clamav

From: "Michael Miles" Sent: Friday, 2010/April/16 14:55 > On 04/16/2010 01:39 PM, jdow wrote: >> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" >> Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >>> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruct

Re: Clamav

On 04/16/2010 03:00 PM, Seann Clark wrote: > Michael Miles wrote: >> On 04/16/2010 01:39 PM, jdow wrote: >>> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" >>> Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 >>> >>> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > I have removed all and I will wait for proper i

Re: Clamav

Michael Miles wrote: On 04/16/2010 01:39 PM, jdow wrote: From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really do not know enough a

Re: Clamav

On 04/16/2010 01:39 PM, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 > > > >> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> >>> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really >>> do not know enough about this OS >>>

Re: Clamav

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 13:39:42 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 > > 4) I will agree with you as far as to say Linux is not as vulnerable as > Windows. That is mostly because it is still perceived as being a boutique > OS with savvy users.

Re: Clamav

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? > > Even if we limit the discussion to email viruses, that's a very complex > and difficult question (to which the answer is "yes" :-). It's

Re: Clamav

From: "Michael Miles" Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 13:02 > On 04/15/2010 12:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> >>> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really >>> do not know enough about this OS >>>

Re: Clamav

From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/15 12:50 > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: >> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really >> do not know enough about this OS > > Given that you say so yourself, the logical question is "why

Re: Clamav

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/15/2010 05:32 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > On 04/15/2010 01:09 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > On 04/15/2010 03:22 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > How on earth do I set this up to get virus definitions that selinux won't jump all over >>>

Re: Clamav

On 04/15/2010 01:09 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/15/2010 03:22 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > >> How on earth do I set this up to get virus definitions that selinux >> won't jump all over >> >> I just want email scanned out and in >> >> I tri

Re: Clamav

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:02 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > Is Fedora really that secure? Even if we limit the discussion to email viruses, that's a very complex and difficult question (to which the answer is "yes" :-). It's not an attribute exclusive to Fedora as such, but to all Unix-based systems

Re: Clamav

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/15/2010 03:22 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > How on earth do I set this up to get virus definitions that selinux > won't jump all over > > I just want email scanned out and in > > I tried the latest 96 could only find i686 rpm for clamav, clamd, f

Re: Clamav

On 04/15/2010 12:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > >> I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really >> do not know enough about this OS >> > Given that you say so yourself, the logical question is "why do

Re: Clamav

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:22 -0700, Michael Miles wrote: > I have removed all and I will wait for proper instruction as I really > do not know enough about this OS Given that you say so yourself, the logical question is "why do you need Clamav"? Clamav is usually installed by people running mail se

Re: Clamav has no init process

> $ rpm -q --whatprovides /etc/init.d/clamd.scan > clamav-scanner-sysvinit-0.95.3-1200.fc12.noarch That did the trick. Thank you. --- Will Y. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/use

Re: Clamav has no init process

> On 26/01/10 14:45, arag...@dcsnow.com wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I have newly installed Fedora 12 and am trying to get clamd running. >> Here >> is the packages I have installed: >> > > http://github.com/csmart/naa/blob/master/configure-clamd.sh Well, this script looks like it is exactly what I

Re: Clamav has no init process

On 26.1.2010 16:45, arag...@dcsnow.com wrote: > Hello all, > > I have newly installed Fedora 12 and am trying to get clamd running. Here > is the packages I have installed: > > I know I am missing something basic. Can someone give me a hint? > $ rpm -q --whatprovides /etc/init.d/clamd.scan clama

Re: Clamav has no init process

On 26/01/10 14:45, arag...@dcsnow.com wrote: > Hello all, > > I have newly installed Fedora 12 and am trying to get clamd running. Here > is the packages I have installed: > http://github.com/csmart/naa/blob/master/configure-clamd.sh --snipped-- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: Clamav has no init process

On 26/01/2010 14:45, arag...@dcsnow.com wrote: > Hello all, > > I have newly installed Fedora 12 and am trying to get clamd running. Here > is the packages I have installed: > > rpm -qa|grep clam > clamav-milter-sysvinit-0.95.3-1200.fc12.noarch > clamav-devel-0.95.3-1200.fc12.x86_64 > clamav-lib