Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:37:05 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: anybody else also infected Message-ID: <20020214153705.GI23253@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <01A7DAF31F93D511AEE300D0B706ED92019ECD65 AT axcs13 DOT cos DOT agilent DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020214091816 DOT 01ee0518 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <3C6BCB35 DOT 4090104 AT cportcorp DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C6BCB35.4090104@cportcorp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:35:33AM -0500, Peter Buckley wrote: >I don't think that faq would have avoided or truncated this thread. It >seems related, but it is in fact different. > >If someone followed the instructions in the faq, they would have had a >false positive reported on cygz.dll. Whenever the cygz.dll file was >called (say, by invoking cygcheck), the real-time scanning of NAV >popped up with "cygz.dll is infected with backdoor.egghead, and has >been quarantined". Yes, but the original message that started this long thread actually had an assurance from Symantec indicating that the DLL *was not infected*. I would have thought that would have been enough to convince people that this was just a false positive. But, instead, we have a 14 (and growing) message thread. >Maybe an addition to that faq needs to be made, that some antivirus >programs (specifically symantec) have had false positives on cygwin >dlls. This is a fact of life. It's not a cygwin-specific issue. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/