bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems

Chris bsd at
Wed Mar 22 10:06:10 UTC 2006

Quoting Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at>:

> [ cc'ing port maintainer, which is always a good idea ]

Thank you, and thank you for your reply.

>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:21 -0800
> Chris <bsd at> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I built & installed bdc-7.0.1_1 from the ports on a 5.4 system.
> uname from your .sig is for that system ?

Indeed. Intended to save me some time typing. :)

>> I have a couple of problems:
>> After the build/ install I logged out/ logged in and performed
>> bdc --update. As instructed by the banner displayed upon successful
>> installation. After updating bdc. I performed bdc --info which returned:
>> Error: core initialization failed: Libfn initialization failed
>> Googling for this error returned a solution that someone on the
>> freebsd-questions list provided back in June of 2005. Further
>> indicationg that "work was underway to release a file, which
>> will be available in a future update." This was almost a year ago.
>> I hate to sound like I'm whining, or ungreatful (which I'm not). But
>> isn't this a long time to wait for something that is related to system
>> security? Anyway, the cure is to build/ install misc/comapt4x. Which I
>> did.
> Interesting. Adi, maybe the port should depend on compat4x until the
> problem is fixed ?
>> I then rebooted after the install. Only to be greeted with an
>> rc message indicating that compat4x was not completely/ correctly
>> installed. I quickly discovered that I needed to enable it in rc.conf.
>> OK, wouldn't it be prudent to place a banner at the end of the compat4x
>> install; warning that an entry in rc is required to ENable compat4x? I
>> enabled it in my kernconf already, as well as Linux emulation/ 
>> compatibility.
>> Linux ABI. As well as Apache and many (most?) of the other ports 
>> that require
>> rc support *do* inform the user after install of this need. I guess I'm
>> just really suprised that something that *is* freebsd doesn't. Just thought
>> it was worth mentioning.
> Look for the message telling you an rc.d file has been installed and if
> you see it

Yes. This is thr "banner" I was *expecting* to see when the port finished
installing. So that I would know that it did/ did not need adding to rc.
But it wasn't there. Nor anything close to resembling such a message.
This is all of course if I understand you correctly.

> you can be 98% sure  you have to enable it via
> rc.conf[.local] Eventually all ports start-up scripts will be converted
> to rc.d and will have to be enable via rc.onf[.local]


>> One last problem; about bdc itself. I ran it against all the mailboxes
>> after making it happy about the libfn problem. I used the following:
>> bdc --arc --files --log --debug --mail --disinfect --move /var/mail
>> which returned:
>> BDC/FreeBSD 5.x-Console (v7.0-2545) (i386) (Dec 22 2004 19:56:57)
>> Copyright (C) 1996-2004 SOFTWIN SRL. All rights reserved.
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[S ...  (CET)]=>(MIME part)=>q361598.exe
>>   infected: Win32.Swen.A at mm <- cevakrnl.xmd
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: ... 6 +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME
>> part)=>q361598.exe  move failed <- cevakrnl.xmd
>> It doesn't appear that all that work to get bdc installed and working
>> was worth the time and trouble after all. Isn't it capable of disinfection
>> yet?
> My policy has always been that infected mail should be deleted :)

Agreed! Unfortunately it's in mbox format and will take a little
ferriting to find/ cut/ delete. :( I'm used to the AV being capable
of doing that. My *purchased* copy for (Win)NT server version of BitDefender
*does* disinfect things quite effectively. Hence my choice of installs
for FreeBSD. I would *dearly* hate to have to depend on some *lame* win boexn
for mail services. >:(

>> It *does* know what it is; as indicated with the following:
>> bdc --arc --files --log --debug --mail --disinfect /var/mail
>> BDC/FreeBSD 5.x-Console (v7.0-2545) (i386) (Dec 22 2004 19:56:57)
>> Copyright (C) 1996-2004 SOFTWIN SRL. All rights reserved.
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[S ...  (CET)]=>(MIME part)=>q361598.exe
>>   infected: Win32.Swen.A at mm <- cevakrnl.xmd
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: M ... :16 +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME
>> part)=>q361598.exe  deleted <- cevakrnl.xmd
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: Mic ...  Feb 2006 21:29:16
>> +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME part)  updated <- mime.xmd
>> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)  updated <- mbox.xmd
>> /var/mail/infos  update failed
>> So it *knows* what it is. But doesn't appear to be a mature enough
>> ant-virus application to actually disinfect or protect a system yet.
>> Is that true?
> Might be true for disinfection for some viruses, but not for all. As to
> protection, I believe it does it job adequately: it detects the
> viruses and the signatures are updated very quick.

Agreed. But not _currently_ without (excessive?) administrative overhead.

Thanks again for the reply.


> --
> IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
>  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"
> BOFH excuse #369:
> Virus transmitted from computer to sysadmins
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

Disc space -- the final frontier!

FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p12 (SMP - 900x2) Tue Mar 7 19:37:23 PST 2006

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list