full-disclosure - Multiple AV Vendors ignoring tar.gz archives

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502051418350.19626-100000@bugsbunny.castlecops.com>
From: zx at castlecops.com (Paul Laudanski)
Subject: Multiple AV Vendors ignoring tar.gz archives

Thanks for replying back so quickly with further details.  I tested a 
standard .tar.bz2 file and found that nod32lms didn't report on diving 
into it.  I'll try to make time later to test it with a .tar.bz2 file 
which contains Eicar.  However, I've also included NOD32 support in this 
reply.

But this is just one company, you do have a point.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Barrie Dempster wrote:

> I didn't configure the AV's I didn't fancy installing all of them and
> thought virus total would give a good indication. It appears from the
> virustotal results and from http://www.nod32.com/products/nt.htm that
> nod32 will scan and detect tar.gz's but not bz2's. This is the most
> common result and could be argued to be valid by the vendors. 
> 
> However you can open tar.bz2's on windows so it's still a valid
> infection vector, although probably not all that useful for viruses. I
> don't believe many users will go googling for the tools needed.
> Nonetheless at least a few of the vendors think it's necessary to go
> beyond the common zip and rar.

-- 
Regards,

Paul Laudanski - Computer Cops, LLC.
CastleCops(SM) - http://castlecops.com
http://cuddlesnkisses.com | http://justalittlepoke.com | http://zhen-xjell.com