From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 22 08:31:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4924816A420 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:31:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B3143D4C for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:31:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634F81759A; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:31:46 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:31:46 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Chris Message-ID: <20060322103146.3c1f6997@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com> References: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.15; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apircalabu@bitdefender.com, "\[FBSDP\]" Subject: Re: bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:31:48 -0000 [ cc'ing port maintainer, which is always a good idea ] > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:21 -0800 Chris wrote: > Hello, > I built & installed bdc-7.0.1_1 from the ports on a 5.4 system. uname from your .sig is for that system ? > I have a couple of problems: > After the build/ install I logged out/ logged in and performed > bdc --update. As instructed by the banner displayed upon successful > installation. After updating bdc. I performed bdc --info which returned: > > Error: core initialization failed: Libfn initialization failed > > Googling for this error returned a solution that someone on the > freebsd-questions list provided back in June of 2005. Further > indicationg that "work was underway to release a libfn.so file, which > will be available in a future update." This was almost a year ago. > I hate to sound like I'm whining, or ungreatful (which I'm not). But > isn't this a long time to wait for something that is related to system > security? Anyway, the cure is to build/ install misc/comapt4x. Which I > did. Interesting. Adi, maybe the port should depend on compat4x until the problem is fixed ? > I then rebooted after the install. Only to be greeted with an > rc message indicating that compat4x was not completely/ correctly > installed. I quickly discovered that I needed to enable it in rc.conf. > OK, wouldn't it be prudent to place a banner at the end of the compat4x > install; warning that an entry in rc is required to ENable compat4x? I > enabled it in my kernconf already, as well as Linux emulation/ compatibility. > Linux ABI. As well as Apache and many (most?) of the other ports that require > rc support *do* inform the user after install of this need. I guess I'm > just really suprised that something that *is* freebsd doesn't. Just thought > it was worth mentioning. Look for the message telling you an rc.d file has been installed and if you see it you can be 98% sure you have to enable it via rc.conf[.local] Eventually all ports start-up scripts will be converted to rc.d and will have to be enable via rc.onf[.local] > One last problem; about bdc itself. I ran it against all the mailboxes > after making it happy about the libfn problem. I used the following: > > bdc --arc --files --log --debug --mail --disinfect --move /var/mail > > which returned: > > BDC/FreeBSD 5.x-Console (v7.0-2545) (i386) (Dec 22 2004 19:56:57) > Copyright (C) 1996-2004 SOFTWIN SRL. All rights reserved. > > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[S ... (CET)]=>(MIME part)=>q361598.exe > infected: Win32.Swen.A@mm <- cevakrnl.xmd > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: ... 6 +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME > part)=>q361598.exe move failed <- cevakrnl.xmd > > It doesn't appear that all that work to get bdc installed and working > was worth the time and trouble after all. Isn't it capable of disinfection > yet? My policy has always been that infected mail should be deleted :) > It *does* know what it is; as indicated with the following: > > bdc --arc --files --log --debug --mail --disinfect /var/mail > BDC/FreeBSD 5.x-Console (v7.0-2545) (i386) (Dec 22 2004 19:56:57) > Copyright (C) 1996-2004 SOFTWIN SRL. All rights reserved. > > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[S ... (CET)]=>(MIME part)=>q361598.exe > infected: Win32.Swen.A@mm <- cevakrnl.xmd > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: M ... :16 +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME > part)=>q361598.exe deleted <- cevakrnl.xmd > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: Mic ... Feb 2006 21:29:16 > +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME part) updated <- mime.xmd > /var/mail/infos=>(message 37) updated <- mbox.xmd > /var/mail/infos update failed > > So it *knows* what it is. But doesn't appear to be a mature enough > ant-virus application to actually disinfect or protect a system yet. > Is that true? Might be true for disinfection for some viruses, but not for all. As to protection, I believe it does it job adequately: it detects the viruses and the signatures are updated very quick. -- IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #369: Virus transmitted from computer to sysadmins