Hi, Scott<br><br>Thanks a lot for your very prompting answer, we uploaded the installer to virustotal and almost all other anti-viruses considered it safe, so we decided to report it to NOD32 as a case of false positive and hopefully get it off the 'naughty list'. <br>
<br>Jason<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 February 2012 18:44, Cantor, Scott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu">cantor.2@osu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 1/31/12 5:52 PM, "Jason Lee" <<a href="mailto:asktheitguy@gmail.com">asktheitguy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>When we are installing the latest Shibboleth SP (2.4.3) on our Windows<br>
>Server 2008, we revived a warning message from local NOD32 Antivirus<br>
>saying it contains a variant of Win32/Agent.DNQAVIY Trojan. We ignored it<br>
>and proceed to completion, but was hit by another warning message from<br>
>NOD32 saying \shibboleth-sp\bin\debug\txfmout.exe is probably a variant<br>
>of Win32/Agent.DNQAVIY Trojan blah blah, so we had to uninstall it; then<br>
>we tried version 2.4.2 on which NOD doesn't give us any warning this<br>
>time. However we have other severs in the same cluster running SP 2.4.3<br>
>(we installed them a month ago and no Antivirus warning what-so-ever).<br>
<br>
</div>Well, I don't know what to tell you, but I can't reproduce that (I've<br>
tried on several occasions at different times). I have no evidence that<br>
it's anything but a false positive. We plan to take steps in future<br>
releases to clean room the builds, but I don't think it's going to stop<br>
this.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>So, would it be OK to have machines in same cluster (behind load balance<br>
>but no sticky sessions) running slight different version of Shibboleth<br>
>SPs? Also does any other Shibboleth&NOD32 users suffer the same Trojan<br>
>warning problem?<br>
<br>
</div>Check the security advisories and then strongly reconsider running 2.4.2.<br>
If you can't trust the software, don't run it or build it yourself. But<br>
don't run a hackable version instead.<br>
<br>
To answer the question, non-sticky sessions implies a shared shibd. That<br>
is not supported and will not work reliably if you mix versions. I make no<br>
comment about any specific mix of versions. It may or may not work, and I<br>
won't do any investigating to determine whether it will. Non-shared<br>
deployments with mixed versions are not supported, but are mostly likely<br>
to work.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- Scott<br>
<br>
--<br>
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to <a href="mailto:users-unsubscribe@shibboleth.net">users-unsubscribe@shibboleth.net</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>