Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:21 -0800 From: Chris <bsd@1command.com> To: "[FBSDP]" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems Message-ID: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, I built & installed bdc-7.0.1_1 from the ports on a 5.4 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. 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. 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? 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? Thank you for all your time and consideration in these matters. --Chris -- Microsoft: Disc space -- the final frontier! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p12 (SMP - 900x2) Tue Mar 7 19:37:23 PST 2006 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so>