linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:31:06 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com
Cc:	"Press, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Press@...com>,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, andi@...stfloor.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net, peterz@...radead.org,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model?  well sorta.

Hi!

> > > a model other than restrictive can make sense with content security
> > > scanning.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand why "interest in content" means not blocking,
> > and vice versa.  However, I think this is a good idea if made more
> > explicit, i.e.:
> 
> Small misunderstanding because both would block. If you go back to Ted's 
> original post I was replying to, he was worried about how would 
> anti-malware scanning interact with HSM since both may end up using the 
> same interface. HSM, as far as I understand it, needs to block on open and 
> "plant" the right file in place, while anti-malware also needs to block 
> and examine the right content. That is why ordering matters, anti-malware 
> needs to run after the content is put in place. And that is what my idea 
> solves (slight overstatement since I spent only seconds on it) by 
> separating them in two groups of clients. First which has no interest in 
> content and second which does.

I don't see why HSMs are mixed into this discussion -- they appear
very different. For one, you probably have just one filesystem with
tape storage, so it makes sense to implement HSM at filesystem level;
probably with something like FUSE+unionfs.
							Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/