linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [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:	Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:06:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface
	for on access scanning

On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 12:31 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > No, I want a sane security policy in kernelsapce that doesn't look
> > at the content because doing security by content properly is equivalent
> > to solving the halting problem.  I couldn't give a rats a** about
> > windows viruses as they can't actually cause any harm on a Linux
> > machine.
> 
> Go on then.. post patches.
> 
> I think your are being incredibly naïve. Our memory debugging is not 100%
> solid but work by heuristic. Our lock analysis doesn't solve the halting
> problem but is extremely useful and so on.

Sure, but what's the point of partial security? It seems to me you're
not secure until you're fully secure, so why bother with almost?

Every bug caught with the debuggers is one caught, yay :-)

Every virus let through is a pawned system, aww :-(



--
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/