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/
