Camaleón:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:51:18 +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> > Camaleón:
> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:38:43 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS I want to remove it because I suppose that in case clamav blesses
> >>> users' life and not server's - by removing clamav I can close one
> >>> potential security whole.
> >>
> >> In what way removing clamav you are closing a "potencial security
> >> hole"? :-?
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=clamav+exploit
>
> Oh, sure.
>
> But you can then change the query by:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=postfix+exploit
> http://www.google.com/search?q=sendmail+exploit
> http://www.google.com/search?q=exim+exploit
>
> And then we have to shutdown the mail service at all :-)
The OP specifically asked whether removing ClamAV from the mail server
would increase the security on the server. The answer is obviously yes.
IMO, the real question (which only the OP can answer) is:
What's worse: the mail server being taken over by an attacker, or
several workstations at once?
J.
--
Ultimately, the Millenium Dome is a spectacular monument of the
doublethink of our times.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature