Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues
From: exon (exon_at_home.se)
Date: 02/02/05
- Previous message: Paul J Docherty: "Portcullis Advisory 05-009 Update, Webseries Payment Application"
- In reply to: Trog: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:17:46 +0100 To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Trog wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 14:41 -0800, Dack 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
>>
>>What mail clients, if any, would execute a virus encoded in this manner?
>>Is this a gaping hole in other mail anti-virus systems, or do most
>>clients just ignore this kind of data?
>
>
> I really haven't tested mail clients, but Thunderbird would be the most
> likely.
>
Nopes. Thunderbird, being a client designed to run under a plethora of
platforms, doesn't bother with executing code at all unless explicitly
asked to. In my opinion that's one of its greatest feature.
- Previous message: Paul J Docherty: "Portcullis Advisory 05-009 Update, Webseries Payment Application"
- In reply to: Trog: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
