| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Comments:
<0> it's usually a GOOD thing to update the engine :)
<0> attack vectors change so fast it's not even funny
<1> digi just got the 300. we have 2 clustered 400s
<2> Deryl: What's wrong with it, is that the only indication I have that I need to do it is in an obscure log file. I have tons of log files I have to deal with on a daily basis, and viruses haven't changed that ****ing much in the last year and a half to have to upgrade the entire ****ing engine three times
<3> not everyone has a 300 head count IT department.
<0> then cron the update script to run every 24 to 48 hours
<1> 400 is were clustering multiple units start, even though it is way oversized for us otherwise
<0> so it updates automatically
<2> Can't I expect my virus software to work for at least 6 months before I have to FIX it
<0> update-clamav.sh iirc
<0> you're not fixing anything, you're just not keeping it up to date
<1> 300 and 400 Barracudas, that is
<0> engines change. hell I get pushes from symantec almost every other day
<2> Why bother with definitions then?
<0> that's NORMAL with scanners
<2> if I have to update the entire software once a week
<2> Sorry dude, I haven't had to update my symantec in 2 years
<2> and it works fine
<2> I still get definitions
<0> well tell you what. get the virus writers to stop trying to check file sigs and hijacking engines and you won't have to update so often
<0> Uhh, dude, i'll lay money that symantec has pushed updates in the background to you and updated your engine
<0> hell I'd stake my LIFE on it
<2> I didn't have to do it
<2> and nothing was interrupted
<1> is newest symenatec corp av still 10?
<4> haha http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/994/593/1600/poop.0.jpg
<2> Baracuda 10.1
<0> i know for a FACT that SEVERAL engine updates hve been pushed *automatically* by liveupdate for SEVERAL of the symantec products
<2> yes. AUTOMATICALLY
<1> jet: postsecrets?
<4> ya
<1> looks like it
<0> well clamav isn't done that way
<2> the last timeI had to update Clamav's engine, the new version required a new zlib
<2> the new zlib required me to patch my GCC
<4> that one was hilarious
<0> cron your update script so it does update
<5> Jet: heh, i was gonna post that earlier. "paisley's submission!"
<1> mmm new ones. I have that site on my links bar :)
<0> yeah because zlib had a security vuln
<0> so anything that uses it in turn ALSO has to be updated
<1> pale_blue: paisley's problem is not pooping, remember :)
<3> fk, that's the difference between an opensource product and a commercial supported product in a lot of cases ... polish.
<3> both are equally viable, one requires more care and feeding than the other.
<2> Deryl: Yes, I know how computers work. It still doesn't change the fact that updating clamav is not as easy as you'd like to claim.
<0> it's called the Domino Effect
<5> right, that's why that's so fitting for paisley. he has a terrible secret that there IS a way he poops.
<0> FKnight`: Uhh if you're updating your base OS on a regular basis, and run the updater via a cron for clamav or avg or even fprot, you won't have very much in the way of maintenance issues.
<0> I never have and I hardly think I'm special
<2> all I'm saying dude is that in Windows, I don't have to reinstall half the OS to update symantec's definitions
<6> "WHen you look in the mirror, you are sure its somebody else, just a perfect reflection"
<0> well this isn't windows. it's opensource unix which does things a lot differently than windows. and windows is not a yardstick to measure by when dealing with unix.
<2> Windows is my yardstick when measuring productivity
<0> windows is meant for ease of use with heavy bias towards the user experience. unix is not
<2> On Symantec, updating is hands off
<2> 100%
<5> didn't SCO try to demonstrate that "opensource unix" is an oxymoron?
<6> yes
<6> 2 years back if I remember correctly
<6> sco was suing some people
<0> SCO just tried to claim that ANY unix out there somehow violated their IP
<0> which the majority of the industry heavyweights just laughed, grouped together and countersued SCO
<3> which they've yet to efficiently demonstrate in a court of law
<1> ooh, I like the idea of leaving a note on the car of people who park like idiots
<3> carry on
<2> You're under this impression that I don't know how Unix works, or that I am unfamiliar with the mechanics and intracacies of Linux apps because I'm some kind of Windows n00b. That is incorrect, and you are ***igning attributes without cause. All I said was ClamAV ****s.
<1> that I hit them
<2> and I was tired of the work I had to deal with.
<0> hehe basicly the court told them to either start actually proving their case or it would be dismissed
<0> that was funny
<0> I'm not ***igning any attributes. I'm going off what you're saying, and I'm saying that I've not experienced the issues you're describing, nor have a good portion of my fellow admins that I've worked with over the years. unless they're using something idiotic like qmail
<4> I'm totally on the other side of the SCO issue. I believe they have IP in every *nix in the world, but what with the fact taht you can modify algorithms slightly and change variable names and ****
<0> but then again, anyone using an excersize in proper security coding, with a definitive statement by the author that this is NOT a production mta, that uses it AS a production mta gets what they deserve.
<4> I wish they would have won so all these open sores advocates would see that software is NOT free
<4> that people actuall WORK to produce it
<4> and most normal people want compensation for stuff they WORK on
<2> All I got out of this entire conversation was that I *should* hold the opinion that updating the build system on my linux box, so that I can update zlib, so that I can update ClamAV, so that I can update definitions is NORMAL and that I should have to deal with that.
<2> I don't hold that opinion.
<0> Uhh Jet not a single line of linux or freebsd code has been proven to be owned by SCO under it's IP rights
<2> I think my software should update itself
<0> not a single fuggin line.
<7> "it's"
<7> :)
<8> yes well
<8> yeah
<2> And if my software says it works under a certain OS configuration, it should continue to do so.
<5> !info apostrophe
<8> i dunno fk, debian can update itself
<5> BTAF owns.
<2> You're saying that opinion is wrong.
<8> not that it's right :P
<9> shaw ppv porn.
<2> When was the last time you needed to update the windows kernel to get new symantec defs?
<2> because that's what it boils down to
<0> uhh i highly doubt you needed to update yoru kernel for any of what you've described
<2> Deryl : In Linux, the kernel is indistinguishable from the build system IN AS MUCH <peanut gallery: note that those three capitalized words are in this sentence> that it is a MAJOR /component/ of the operating system.
<2> If my software says it works under x
<2> it should continue to do so
<2> I shouldn't have to check a log file every few days to make sure my software suddenly didn't change it's operating system requirements.
<0> dude, the zlib vulnerability cused any applications that used that library's functionality to be recompiled. that's the way it is in the unix world whether it be OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, Linux, or even Windows. the only difference in windows is that Microsoft does that portion FOR you, creates a binary diff and pushes it to you through windows update
<0> and that's part of BEING a unix admin. checking those logs, looking for exactly that
<2> Yes, but you're not getting what I'm saying. So what if ClamAV needed to be recompiled? Why aren't the definitions forward compatible ?
<2> They are forcing me to update my OS
<2> to MAINTAIN FUNCTIONALITY
<0> writing scripts to grep the logs say every hour or so looking for the specific bit patterns that show something is amiss.
<2> on software I ALREADY INSTALLED
<3> whut? script writing? use SEC.
<0> because it RELIES on a CRITICAL library
<3> proper event correlation.
<0> so thus it in turn needs to BE recompiled
<0> zlib is no small out of the way library
<4> FKnight`: because open source software doesn't care about compatiblity... if you have to change your config file format everytime you update an x.y.point version, so be it
<0> it's a VERY important lib in the unix world
<4> "you can write a perl script to convert your config file!"
<0> Jet: and that's completely untrue
<4> uhhh, why not just make the config file backwards compatible
<2> That's not true?
<2> Have you seen smbmountr ?
<10> sup all
<0> no, that's not true
<2> *smbmount
<2> the command line options changed within the same subversions several times
<3> http://kodu.neti.ee/~risto/sec/
<0> FKnight`: wow a FEW apps do NOT define the ENTIRE open source community and how it handles configs
<10> can someone help me w/ an IE7 prob Im having
<2> you said it's not true
<2> I was saying it was
<2> and demonstrated so
<4> |Pele|: nope
<4> IE7 isn't released yet
<4> !info beta
<0> FKnight`: it was stated as if that is an encomp***ing commonality
<0> and it is not
<2> The bottom line is, the SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS for my Antivirus software on Linux *CHANGED*
<2> while it was already installed
<3> ayup.
<3> that's a difference in the constituency requirements.
<3> you are paying for windows and if that constituency bitches about backwards or automatic changes; they can choose NOT to pay for it.
<3> open source is free and if you don't like it, oh well.
<0> well guess what. if you wanted a fully mature all encomp***ing everything works 100% as expected 100% hands off, you wouldn't be running unix. you'd be running all windows or some commercial version of an operating system
<3> there is no recompense for disatisfaction except not to use it and/or flame a list or two.
<2> Why not make the virus definition files backwards compatible and simply lose functionality of new viruses but still let me download the new defs of viruses that CAN be handled by MY installed version
<0> amonfils: exactly. and the majority of linux's usage patterns are NOT typical of what he describes
<0> there ARE a FEW problematic areas, but that is not the commonality
<3> fk, you are not incorrect in your demand or needs.
<0> amonfils: i'm not saying he is
<2> Deryl: Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am bitching as if I have no choice. I already said ClamAV ****s and I'm not going to use it anymore. You're the one that told me that my opinion was wrong, and now you are telling me "so don't use it, then" .. well, I already stopped, that's why you told me my opinion is wrong.
<2> Don't make this conversation into a circle.
<3> it's been an hour of a circle jerk.
Return to
#windows
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#directx
#politics
#linux-noob
#firebird
#microsoft
Dell 2407FP manual
#computers
#online
#gamedev
|
|
