| |||||||||||||
Thanks! (ClamAV users: Please enable stats)Thanks! (ClamAV users: Please enable stats)Posted May 13, 2010 13:59 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: Thanks! (ClamAV users: Please enable stats) by ringerc Parent article: ClamAV 0.96 adds executable virus signatures and more
I'm grateful to ClamAV also. But saying It "just works" isn't always correct. The Clam developers deliberately forced older versions to stop working on 2010-04-15, and they accidentally forced versions < 0.96 to stop working on 2010-05-11: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/clamav/users/48283 This latter accident has me really concerned... is signing the bytecode really safe enough?
(Log in to post comments)
Thanks! (ClamAV users: Please enable stats) Posted May 13, 2010 19:13 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
The killer for me was I couldn't find a single attempt by Debian to update the package as a security update. They just let it die and recommended everyone install the unstable package. I found it highly unpleasant to install a single unstable package to get my email server running again (I didn't want to disable virus scanning). If killing the signatures database doesn't count as a security update, what does?
|
|||||||||||||