Re: [Clamav-users] Sig version not reported correctly in 0.92

On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> [root@server~]# clamd -V
> ClamAV 0.92/5110/Wed Dec 12 15:42:31 2007
>
> [root@server~]# freshclam
> ClamAV update process started at Thu Dec 20 09:29:43 2007
> main.cvd is up to date (version: 45, sigs: 169676, f-level: 21,
> builder:
> sven)
> daily.inc is up to date (version: 5186, sigs: 9975, f-level: 21,
> builder: aeriana)
>
> Is that normal?

Nope...possibly you have clamd and freshclam not in agreement as to where the virus DB files should go, perhaps because you had an older version installed and still present in your path?

42-pi# freshclam
ClamAV update process started at Thu Dec 20 13:57:48 2007 main.inc is up to date (version: 45, sigs: 169676, f-level: 21, builder: sven)
Downloading daily-5194.cdiff [100%]
daily.inc updated (version: 5194, sigs: 10360, f-level: 21, builder: ccordes)
Database updated (180036 signatures) from db.us.clamav.net (IP: 64.142.100.50)
Clamd successfully notified about the update.

43-pi# clamd -V
ClamAV 0.92/5194/Thu Dec 20 13:31:08 2007 44-pi# freshclam -V
ClamAV 0.92/5194/Thu Dec 20 13:31:08 2007

Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html

• This message: [ Message body ]
• Next message: Ugo Bellavance: "Re: [Clamav-users] Sig version not reported correctly in 0.92"
• Previous message: Dariusz Wojciechowski: "Re: [Clamav-users] Mailscanner doesn't work with 0.92 due to libclamavincompatibility"
• In reply to: Ugo Bellavance: "[Clamav-users] Sig version not reported correctly in 0.92"
• Next in thread: Ugo Bellavance: "Re: [Clamav-users] Sig version not reported correctly in 0.92"
• Reply: Ugo Bellavance: "Re: [Clamav-users] Sig version not reported correctly in 0.92"

• Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]