|
|
BugTraq
[ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues Jan 31 2005 07:41PM Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (jaervosz gentoo org) (1 replies) Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues Feb 01 2005 09:09AM Trog (trog uncon org) (1 replies) Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues Feb 01 2005 10:41PM Dack (dackbug ereomega net) (2 replies) Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues Feb 02 2005 01:33PM Darren Bounds (lists intrusense com) Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues Feb 01 2005 11:16PM Trog (trog uncon org) (1 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 14:41 -0800, Dack wrote:
>
>>>>By sending a base64 encoded image file in a URL an attacker could evade
>>>>virus scanning.
>>>
>>>It's somewhat harsh to single out ClamAV for this issue. AFAICT, the
>>>only two virus scanners that do currently protect against this are
>>
>>What mail clients, if any, would execute a virus encoded in this manner?
>>Is this a gaping hole in other mail anti-virus systems, or do most
>>clients just ignore this kind of data?
>
>
> I really haven't tested mail clients, but Thunderbird would be the most
> likely.
>
Nopes. Thunderbird, being a client designed to run under a plethora of
platforms, doesn't bother with executing code at all unless explicitly
asked to. In my opinion that's one of its greatest feature.
[ reply ]