krzysiek at lichota.net
Mon Aug 13 00:07:02 BST 2007
Michael D. Stemle, Jr. napisał(a):
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 14:20:26 Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> Virus scanners are pretty special in this regard, because it is critical
>> for them to be updated quickly to react on new viruses. So they should
>> bypass normal update procedure, as packaging will always lag behind
>> upstream releases.
> Yes, but there's a difference between program updates and definition updates.
> I agree with Scott that we shouldn't have the program updating the program by
Virus scanners might update _program_ to:
a) remove critical vulnerability, which can be for example exploited by
scanning file for viruses (like the Zip bomb)
b) update their scanning algorithms in order to catch polimorphic
viruses or to use new kind of fingerprints in the virus definitions
I do not know what exactly Clamav/Klamav does during update, so I think
it would be best to ask Clamav/Klamav developers what they think of not
updating main application.
I guess they would not be happy to receive tons of angry e-mails that
clamav did not protect somebody's computer although it was up-to-date
because Ubuntu disabled updates for clamav.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/attachments/20070813/3561023d/attachment.pgp
More information about the kubuntu-devel