A question for Umesh regards family signatures.

[dave1234]

Hi Umesh. Today you notified us of adding generic sigs to the data base and cleaning up redundant signatures.I am thinking you mean signatures which are perhaps not in the wild anymore and therefore not a threat?.

Also i noticed a 40,000 plus reduction in sigs. Was this a direct result of the removal of redundant sigs or a combination of that and adding generic sigs therefore reducing the size of the data base?.

Can you confirm by what approximate number the data base will now reduce by signature wise per day, and the timescale if known to get the db down to target size, and i assume this means daisy is all made up and strutting her stuff!.

Regards
Dave1234.

[jimbell]

@dave1234 post:1

I am thinking you mean signatures which are perhaps not in the wild anymore and therefore not a threat?.

We won’t be less protected, the clean up process is simply cleaning up duplicated definitions due to the introduction of a family signature. So 1 signature may detect a few hundred viruses, these individual definitions can then be removed - hence the reduction in size.

Jim

[Citizen_K]

I don’t think they will take out definitions. You can never tell for sure a virus does not exist anymore. The web is too big, or may be on a CD ROM, tape archive or the hooligans that make viruses keep it in their archives…; as you see there is no such thing as certainty it doesn’t exist anymore.