linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, capibara@...all.nl,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, davecb@....com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net,
	Mihai Don??u <mdontu@...defender.com>,
	Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	rmeijer@...all.nl, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro	to
 a linux interface for on access scanning

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote on 18/08/2008 16:31:48:
>
>>> Huh? I was never advocating re-scan after each modification and I even
>
>>> explicitly said it does not make sense for AV not only for performance
> but
>>> because it will be useless most of the time. I thought sending out
>>> modified notification on close makes sense because it is a natural
> point,
>>> unless someone is trying to subvert which is out of scope. Other have
>>> suggested time delay and lumping up.
>>
>> You need a bit more than close I imagine, otherwise I can simply keep
> the
>> file open forever. There are lots of cases where that would be natural
>> behaviour - eg if I was to attack some kind of web forum and insert a
>> windows worm into the forum which was database backed the file would
>> probably never be closed. That seems to be one of the more common attack
>> vectors nowdays.
>
> Yes, I agree that modification notifications are needed in some cases.
>
>>> Also, just to double-check, you don't think AV scanning would read the
>
>>> whole file on every write?
>>
>> So you need the system to accumulate some kind of complete in memory set
>> of 'dirty' range lists on all I/O ? That is going to have pretty bad
>> performance impacts and serialization.
>
> No, I was just saying scanning is pretty smart, it's not some brute force
> method of scan all data that is there. It has a file type detection and
> what and how to scan is determined by that. If a file does not resemble
> any file type I don't think it gets scanned. For example take couple of
> gigabytes of zeros and try to scan that with some products. I don't think
> they will try to read the whole file.

trying to include details of where each file was updated means that you 
can't just set a single 'dirty' flag for the file (or clear the 'scanned' 
flags), you instead need to detect and notify on every write.

this is a HUGE additional load on the notification mechansim and the 
software that recieves the notifications.

just sending "fix X was scanned and now isn't" is going to be bad enough, 
you _really_ don't want to do this for every write.

David Lang
--
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/