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]

Message-ID: <2629CC4E1D22A64593B02C43E855530304AE4BCB@USILMS12.ca.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:03:40 -0400
From:	"Press, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Press@...com>
To:	<tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>, "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	<peterz@...radead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<malware-list@...ts.printk.net>, <hch@...radead.org>,
	<viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	<malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net>,
	<alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model?  well sorta.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net [mailto:malware-list-
> bounces@...sg.printk.net] On Behalf Of tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:31 AM
> To: Theodore Tso
> Cc: peterz@...radead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; malware-
> list@...ts.printk.net; hch@...radead.org; viro@...IV.linux.org.uk;
> andi@...stfloor.org; malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net;
> alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk; Arjan van de Ven
> Subject: Re: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.

 
> Hm, maybe by implementing a facility with which a client can register
it's
> interface usage intent? Something like:
> 
> register(I_HAVE_NO_INTEREST_IN_CONTENT);
> register(I_WANT_TO_EXAMINE_CONTENT);
> 
> All former ones would run first because they only want to have the
> opportunity to block and do something unrelated to file content (like
> HSMs), and later group would be ran last since they want to examine
the
> content.
> 
> Ordering inside those two groups is not important because I don't see
how
> 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.:

> register(BLOCK);
> register(DON'T_BLOCK);


Jon Press

--
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/