But I have my db download set to update any time that I log on. It
should therefore be current.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> That should've been:
>
> ----
> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1
> 17:29:10 2015
> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs:
> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo)
> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21032,
> sigs: 1645531, f-level: 63, builder: shurley)
> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269,
> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg)
> ----
>
> That is, daily.cld version 21032 does not report the trojan. 21031 does.
> IIRC 21030 reported the trojan on Friday as well.
>
> On 11/1/15 10:25 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 01 05:58:39 2015
> >
> > main.cvd is up to date (version: 55, sigs: 2424225, f-level: 60,
> > builder: neo)
> > daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031, sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63,
> > builder: neo)
> > bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269, sigs: 47, f-level: 63,
> > builder: anvilleg)
> >
> > Thanks for your response.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> >> Which versions of the main, daily, and bytecode databases are you using?
> >> On Friday clamscan was reporting that Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 was
> >> present in some of the 32-bit Windows installers.
> >>
> >> If I run clamscan today with the following database versions on the same
> >> files the scans come up clean:
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Sun Nov 1 08:27:42 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1
> >> 08:27:42 2015
> >> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs:
> >> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo)
> >> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031,
> >> sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63, builder: neo)
> >> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269,
> >> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg)
> >> ----
> >>
> >>
> >> Note that AV false positives happen often enough that we maintain a list:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.wireshark.org/FalsePositives
> >>
> >> As does the NSIS team (which tends to impact the Wireshark and WinPcap
> >> installers):
> >>
> >> http://nsis.sourceforge.net/NSIS_False_Positives
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/1/15 9:46 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> Yes I am. But these trojans were not present a on the 28th of October.
> >>> Meaning that the database update since the 28th would have had to have
> >>> contained this misinformation. I have contacted ClamAV but they have not
> >>> responded yet. SANS is involved in this issue as well.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 09:12 AM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> >>>> 2015-11-01 17:58 GMT+01:00 <gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After discovering the attached trojans during a scan on the 30th, I
> >>>>> removed infected files, scrubbed the registry, repeated the scan. Nada.
> >>>>> Then, I needed to replace the networking tools by downloading fresh
> >>>>> copies of the removed, infected exe files. Upon downloading various
> >>>>> tools from their respective websites, I repeated the virus scan to be
> >>>>> sure. All newly downloaded exe files were again infected with the same
> >>>>> trojans.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since all the Wireshark & WinPCap files were affected, I was wondering
> >>>>> if any of you out there have had the same experience?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope that someone can help me brainstorm for a fix. I need to use the
> >>>>> tools of the trade.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for any ideas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you using ClamAV by any chance? as reported by Gerald Comb
> >>>> (Wireshark's
> >>>> leader) on the development list (
> >>>> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201510/msg00125.html) this
> >>>> seems to be a false positive reported to clamav.net.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Pascal.
> >>>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> > mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe