Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:31:46 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Chris <bsd@1command.com> Cc: apircalabu@bitdefender.com, "\[FBSDP\]" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems Message-ID: <20060322103146.3c1f6997@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com> References: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ cc'ing port maintainer, which is always a good idea ] > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:21 -0800 Chris <bsd@1command.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060322103146.3c1f6997>