[clamav-users] [Clamav-announce] New packages for ClamAV 0.103.7, 0.104.4, 0.105.1 to resolve CVE's

[G.W. Haywood]

Hi there,

On Tue, 1 Nov 2022, G.W. Haywood via clamav-users wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022, Micah Snyder (micasnyd) via clamav-users wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022, G.W. Haywood via clamav-users wrote:
>> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, Micah Snyder (micasnyd) wrote:
>> >
>> > > Today we are publishing updated packages for ClamAV 0.103.7 ...
>> >
>> > Maybe I've done something stupid...
>> >
>> > Nov  1 17:16:48 mail6 x3[3078]: 2A1HGPGJ007261: xm_clamav_scan( 2425): 
>> > [74.121.52.251], [AS19795], Response from ClamAV daemon [ENGINE VERSION 
>> > MISMATCH: devel-11aaa24dd != 0.103.7. ERROR]
>> 
>> It seems that your libclamav is from a different build than your clamd.
>
> Yeah. :)  I don't know how, though.
> ...
> Am I using the right tarball?
>
> $ ls -l clamav-0.103.7.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ged ged 16501741 Jul 26 22:54 
> clamav-0.103.7.tar.gz
> $ md5sum clamav-0.103.7.tar.gz 9138e4678fabfb39bbe1844001ff4815 
> clamav-0.103.7.tar.gz
> ...
> ...  last time I built 0.103.x it was with autotools.  This time I
> tried CMake which seemed to work ...
> ...
> ... if you can confirm that the tarball on the download page is
> wrong that will be a good place to start.

FWIW the problem went away when I used autotools instead of CMake:

Nov  2 10:38:40 mail6 x3[3051]: 2A2AcRf6010225: xm_clamav_scan( 2425): [92.52.217.165], [AS208708], Response from ClamAV daemon [ClamAV 0.103.7/26708/Wed Nov  2 07:51:42 2022] ...

I still don't like the look of that tarball.

-- 

73,
Ged.