bugtraq - Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:17:46 +0100
From: exon <exon@...e.se>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] [ GLSA 200501-46 ] ClamAV: Multiple issues


Trog wrote:
> 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.