Time taken to complete scan recently doubled
lists--- via clamav-users <[email protected]> Wed, 30 Jul 2025 05:41:53 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.virus.clamav.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Speaking to the recent new signatures, some of them are incredibly open ended, and don't seem quite viable. When searching on the hit, I found this: https://github.com/streetsidesoftware/vscode-spell-checker/issues/4654 It's definitely a false positive. Looking at a hit we had, and getting more output I see this: $ grep -r Py.Malware.NetAccess_pty_SG-10053671-0 * | sigtool --decode-sigs -v VIRUS NAME: daily.ldb:Py.Malware.NetAccess_pty_SG-10053671-0 TDB: Engine:90-255,Container:CL_TYPE_ZIP,Target:0 LOGICAL EXPRESSION: 0&1 * SUBSIG ID 0 +-> OFFSET: ANY +-> SIGMOD: NONE +-> DECODED SUBSIGNATURE: torch * SUBSIG ID 1 +-> OFFSET: ANY +-> SIGMOD: NONE +-> DECODED SUBSIGNATURE: Vpty This is extremely open ended. Simply search for 'torch' in an entire file, then searching for 'Vpty' any distance from 'torch' is going to result in massive hits. Why? Anything that has data of any sort in it, will result in a hit. Any sort of SSH key, embedded images, md5 signatures, certificates, anything. I'm wondering if these signatures were generated by AI, and not properly human reviewed? That is, are people submitting signatures now, without human review? Regardless, if there's a binary blob that's troublesome, Vpty (as an example) isn't enough to prevent false positives. It needs to be a much larger string. _______________________________________________ Manage your clamav-users mailing list subscription / unsubscribe: https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/clamav-documentation https://docs.clamav.net/#mailing-lists-and-chat