June 9th, 2008 Posted by - webmaster
ClamAV 0.93.1 was released today. This version improves handling of PDF, CAB, RTF, OLE2 and HTML files and includes various bugfixes for 0.93 issues.
You can download it from the usual location.
June 8th, 2008 Posted by - webmaster
You are all invited to attend what we hope will be the first in a series of ClamAV webinars presented by members of the ClamAV team within Sourcefire. The talk, given by ClamAV author and Sourcefire's ClamAV CTO, Tomasz Kojm, will cover a broad introduction to ClamAV. The presentation will last approximately one hour and cover: (Read more...)
April 4th, 2008 Posted by - webmaster
SANS Technology Institute just published an interview with ClamAV project founder Tomasz Kojm.
The interview gives the reader an insight on the origin of the project, the vision that leads its development and the current situation in the malware arena.
A recommended read!
December 12th, 2007 Posted by - webmaster
Sourcefire is pleased to introduce a commercial support service for ClamAV. This new service is designed to satisfy the needs of businesses and government agencies that require commercial support be available for open source products in production environments.
Read the press release.
For more information on Certified ClamAV support visit: http://www.sourcefire.com/products/clamav/support
September 20th, 2007 Posted by - webmaster
In its blog at http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2007/08/12/what-a-tangled-web
McAfee has been receiving inquiries from its users over the results of the Untangle test.
The “Fight Club” test at LinuxWorld was not only a test of AV products. McAfee has missed a point here: the test also demonstrated that AV tests rarely publish their methodology. A test that lacks open review of the methodology used and that as a result shows any vendor in a positive light can’t be considered objective.
The “Fight Club” test is the only test, that we are aware of, to fully publish its methodology. Vendors that don’t fare well in tests that can be scrutinised are happy to make claims based on tests conducted behind closed doors that lack published methodology and success criteria because those tests cannot be questioned.
While the methodology in this test has been debated, we believe that all tests should be as open to review as the Untangle test was!
