ClamWin Free Antivirus Forum Index
ClamWin Free Antivirus
Support and Discussion Forums
Reply to topic
ClamWin cannot W32.Autoit.Obfus
ocavid


Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 0
Reply with quote
Hi there,

We have a very bad situation. ClamAV for linux can detect this W32.Autoit.Obfus, but no the latest ClamWin

Our Transcript

ClamAV update process started at Mon Feb 04 09:14:03 2008
main.inc is up to date (version: 45, sigs: 169676, f-level: 21, builder: sven)
daily.inc is up to date (version: 5677, sigs: 33981, f-level: 21, builder: ccordes)

--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------

File scanned in windows
Scan Started Mon Feb 04 09:29:48 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 203657
Engine version: 0.91.2
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Skipped non-executable files: 0
Infected files: 0

Data scanned: 0.78 MB
Time: 28.422 sec (0 m 28 s)
--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------



Using Linux
[john@local ~]# clamscan SCVHOST.exe
SCVHOST.exe: W32.Autoit.Obfus FOUND

----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 373333
Engine version: 0.92
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 1
Data scanned: 0.29 MB
Time: 7.188 sec (0 m 7 s)


the virus file is named SCVHOST.exe

Please help!

Thanks,
Ocavid
View user's profileSend private message
GuitarBob


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Location: USA
Reply with quote
It doesn't look like you are using the same signature database for ClamWin as you are for ClamAV on Linux. According to your scan reports, the total signatues in ClamWin are 203,657, but they are 373,333 in Linux. The virus in question might not be in your Clamwin signature database but is in your ClamAV's. According to ClamAV's website, their database has 203,664 viruse/malwares in it, so your ClamWin 203,657 figure looks correct. I wonder how you got 373,333 signatures in your ClamAV--are you using some additional signatures that aren't "official" signatures from Clam that ClamWin doesn't have?

In addition, you are using ClamWin version .91.2. The latest version is now .92, but that shouldn't affect the database or virus recognition, however.

Regards,
View user's profileSend private message
ocavid


Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 0
Reply with quote
I scanned that file from one of our SME servers (e-smith from www.contribs.org). i wonder where did they get their signatures.

(I thought they where from the same repos)
View user's profileSend private message
ocavid


Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 0
Reply with quote
At last clamwin found it!


Scan Started Mon Feb 04 20:32:35 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\VIRUS\SCVHOST.exe: Removed

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\VIRUS\SCVHOST.exe: W32.Autoit.Obfus FOUND
----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 200985
Engine version: 0.92
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Skipped non-executable files: 0
Infected files: 1

Data scanned: 0.29 MB
Time: 6.953 sec (0 m 6 s)
--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------
View user's profileSend private message
GuitarBob


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Location: USA
Reply with quote
Good! I see you have upgraded to version .92. If you look at the total signatures, however, they are just a little over 200,000, which is less than last time. Are you scanning from the same machine? Keep all of them updated!

Regards,
View user's profileSend private message
ocavid


Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 0
Reply with quote
Yes, it is on the same machine.

havea great day!
View user's profileSend private message
ClamWin cannot W32.Autoit.Obfus
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic