linux-kernel - RE: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to alinuxinterfaceforon access scanning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:37:42 -0400
From:	"Press, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Press@...com>
To:	"Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	"Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Eric Paris" <eparis@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<malware-list@...ts.printk.net>,
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to alinuxinterfaceforon access scanning



-----Original Message-----
From: Theodore Tso [mailto:tytso@....edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:55 PM
To: Press, Jonathan
Cc: Greg KH; Arjan van de Ven; Eric Paris; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
malware-list@...ts.printk.net; linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to
alinuxinterfaceforon access scanning

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 02:38:23PM -0400, Press, Jonathan wrote:
> Is your point that Linux and Unix machines are less vulnerable to
> viruses?  If so, that's not relevant to my point at all.  A Unix
machine
> can be a carrier, passing infections on to other vulnerable platforms
> (guess which one).  An enterprise security system sees the entire
> enterprise as an integrated whole -- not just individual machines with
> their own separate attributes and no impact on each other at all.

Sure, but if that's the case, you don't need to have a blocking open()
interface.  Having inotify tell your application that a file
descriptor that had been opened for writing has been closed
(IN_CLOSE_WRITE) should be quite sufficient.


[JON PRESS]  I don't get the connection between what I said and your
point about not needing blocking open() interface.  If I ftp into a
Linux machine and GET an infected file, you want FTP to go right ahead
and read it and send it to me over the wire?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/