So the puzzle is about the remaining trojans. The trojans associated
with the other networking tools. Here is my version info per
Help>About:
main = 55
daily = 21031
updated = Oct 30, 2015
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> The only report I've seen so far on the buildbots is
> Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 in the NSIS uninstaller:
>
> C:\[...]\build\cmbuild\run\RelWithDebInfo\uninstall.exe:
> Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 FOUND
>
> On 11/1/15 10:38 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Are you referring to only the Wireshark/WinPCap trojan or all of the
> > trojans? Thanks
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> >> That should've been:
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1
> >> 17:29:10 2015
> >> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs:
> >> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo)
> >> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21032,
> >> sigs: 1645531, f-level: 63, builder: shurley)
> >> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269,
> >> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg)
> >> ----
> >>
> >> That is, daily.cld version 21032 does not report the trojan. 21031 does.
> >> IIRC 21030 reported the trojan on Friday as well.
> >>
> >> On 11/1/15 10:25 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 01 05:58:39 2015
> >>>
> >>> main.cvd is up to date (version: 55, sigs: 2424225, f-level: 60,
> >>> builder: neo)
> >>> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031, sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63,
> >>> builder: neo)
> >>> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269, sigs: 47, f-level: 63,
> >>> builder: anvilleg)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your response.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> >>>> Which versions of the main, daily, and bytecode databases are you using?
> >>>> On Friday clamscan was reporting that Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 was
> >>>> present in some of the 32-bit Windows installers.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I run clamscan today with the following database versions on the same
> >>>> files the scans come up clean:
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:42 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1
> >>>> 08:27:42 2015
> >>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs:
> >>>> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo)
> >>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031,
> >>>> sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63, builder: neo)
> >>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269,
> >>>> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg)
> >>>> ----
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that AV false positives happen often enough that we maintain a list:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://wiki.wireshark.org/FalsePositives
> >>>>
> >>>> As does the NSIS team (which tends to impact the Wireshark and WinPcap
> >>>> installers):
> >>>>
> >>>> http://nsis.sourceforge.net/NSIS_False_Positives
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/1/15 9:46 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>> Yes I am. But these trojans were not present a on the 28th of October.
> >>>>> Meaning that the database update since the 28th would have had to have
> >>>>> contained this misinformation. I have contacted ClamAV but they have not
> >>>>> responded yet. SANS is involved in this issue as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 09:12 AM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> >>>>>> 2015-11-01 17:58 GMT+01:00 <gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After discovering the attached trojans during a scan on the 30th, I
> >>>>>>> removed infected files, scrubbed the registry, repeated the scan. Nada.
> >>>>>>> Then, I needed to replace the networking tools by downloading fresh
> >>>>>>> copies of the removed, infected exe files. Upon downloading various
> >>>>>>> tools from their respective websites, I repeated the virus scan to be
> >>>>>>> sure. All newly downloaded exe files were again infected with the same
> >>>>>>> trojans.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since all the Wireshark & WinPCap files were affected, I was wondering
> >>>>>>> if any of you out there have had the same experience?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hope that someone can help me brainstorm for a fix. I need to use the
> >>>>>>> tools of the trade.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for any ideas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you using ClamAV by any chance? as reported by Gerald Comb
> >>>>>> (Wireshark's
> >>>>>> leader) on the development list (
> >>>>>> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201510/msg00125.html) this
> >>>>>> seems to be a false positive reported to clamav.net.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>> Pascal.
> >>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>>>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> >> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
