ClamWin Free Antivirus Forum Index
ClamWin Free Antivirus
Support and Discussion Forums
Reply to topic
Reported exploit or false positives
Anteaus


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 0
Reply with quote
Just wondered if this might be relevant - We run Clam on a couple of servers. It's the commandline-only https://oss.netfarm.it/clamav/files/clamav-win32-vc6-0.92.7z version, and was using version 0.91 at the time. On both, Freshclam.exe had stopped updating the defs some days back, and I was at a loss to figure out why. The scanner was still working.

As an interim measure on one box I downloaded the main and daily databases manually, and replaced the two db subfolders with these. Initially this worked, but the next time Freshclam ran, problems started. A folder with a long gibberish name appeared in the root of C: with 'Clam' being part of the name, leaving little doubt as to its source. This foldername contained illegal characters and proved hard to delete.

Any virus-scan after this would push the processor utilisation to 100%, and take ages. After some hours, the server halted with an 'Insufficient resources' message. (not a bluescreen, just an ordinary GUI message) A reboot got it going again, thankfully. This (NT4 sp6) server is normally very reliable, typically running 1000-2000 hours between reboots.

I updated the AV program to 0.92, deleted the defs and re-downloaded them, and this appeared to cure the problem.

I'm wondering if there was a problem in a recent batch of defs, or if it is a format-conflict between the current defs and the 0.91 executable? Just mention it in case it helps track-down the problem.
View user's profileSend private message
GuitarBob


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Location: USA
Reply with quote
I guess we can speculate all we want--only Clam would know for sure unless the ClamWin developers are privy to something. I know Clam is changing the scan logic with version .93 (now in release candidate stage). I know they also now have an additional file type for signatures--type 6 for scripts. It also looks to me like scan times have been a bit faster during the last couple of days--so...I guess they could have changed the signature formats a bit to set up for the new logic.

Regards,
View user's profileSend private message
Reported exploit or false positives
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