Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues
From: Trog (trog_at_uncon.org)
Date: 02/01/05
- Previous message: Matthias Geerdsen: "[Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200502-01 ] FireHOL: Insecure temporary file creation"
- In reply to: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen: "[ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen <jaervosz@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:09:18 +0000
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 20:41 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
>
> By sending a base64 encoded image file in a URL an attacker could evade
> virus scanning.
It's somewhat harsh to single out ClamAV for this issue. AFAICT, the
only two virus scanners that do currently protect against this are
ClamAV and AntiVir.
According to current testing, all the others, including:
AVG
Avast
BitDefender
DrWeb
eTrust-Iris
eTrust-Vet
F-Prot
F-Secure
Kaspersky
mks_vir
NOD32
Norman Virus Control
Panda8
Sophos
Sybari
Symantec
do not offer protection against this issue. If anyone sees any errors in
the list above, please let me know
-trog
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: Matthias Geerdsen: "[Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200502-01 ] FireHOL: Insecure temporary file creation"
- In reply to: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen: "[ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
