full-disclosure - Multiple AV Vendors ignoring tar.gz archives

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <EFEDB05BD6D3904BA5A595FB322BB4FF2545AC@dnzakex1.datacom.co.nz>
From: StuartF at datacom.co.nz (Stuart Fox (DSL AK))
Subject: Multiple AV Vendors ignoring tar.gz archives

> For lack of a better name -- after all, this is a technology 
> that has hardly been investigated -- I refer to this as 
> integrity management.  
> Basically you turn known virus scanning on its head to have 
> the on- access scanner only allow known good code to run, 
> rather than trying to do the impossible of finding all 
> possible permutations of all possible
> (known) "bad" code.  This can easily be done using the 
> existing technology, but instead of depending on the a vendor 
> to find new bad things, add detection of them and ship that 
> update _finally_ giving the user protection, the user 
> supplies their own list of _allowable_ code and new code can 
> be run once the administrator updates their own, of allowable 
> code database .  (There are other clever things such a re- 
> purposing of this technology neatly allows too -- for 
> example, such technology could easily be configured to block 
> access to all files of a given type; it can be easily used to 
> track software usage for auditing 
> and licensing checking; etc, etc...)   

Isn't this similar to what MS do in Windows 2003/XP SP2 with Software
Restriction Policies?  Executables are only allowed to run provided they
fit a prespecified pattern i.e. name (not very useful), signed or not,
hash of the executable.