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 13:40:09 -0400
From:	"Press, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Press@...com>
To:	<david@...g.hm>
Cc:	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Helge Hafting" <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <malware-list@...ts.printk.net>,
	<hch@...radead.org>, <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	<viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, <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: david@...g.hm [mailto:david@...g.hm]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Press, Jonathan
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra; Helge Hafting; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
malware-
> list@...ts.printk.net; hch@...radead.org; andi@...stfloor.org;
> viro@...IV.linux.org.uk; alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk; Arjan van de Ven
> Subject: RE: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.
> 
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Press, Jonathan wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: david@...g.hm [mailto:david@...g.hm]
> >>> The problem is that you have to account for the cases where the
malware
> >>> made it onto the system even if you were trying to catch it ahead
of
> >>> time.  For example:
> >>>
> >>> - Administrator turns off or reduces AV protection for some reason
for
> >>> some period of time.  It happens all the time.
> >>
> >> according to the threat model actions of the administrator do not
matter.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
> 
> the threat model that was posted two days ago in the initial message
of
> this thread specificly stated that actions of root are not something
that
> this is trying to defend against.

I think you may have missed the point of any such statement.

Just to clarify...

The model does not exclude root-owned processes from the notification
and scanning sequence.  If root attempts to execute a file, that file
would be scanned before the execution is allowed.  If a root-owned
process attempts to open a file, that access would be blocked until the
file is scanned.  If a root-owned process closes a file that has been
written to, that file would be scanned.

In addition, to generalize from the incorrect idea that the actions of
root are not being defended against to the idea that the possible
impacts of an administrator's actions in configuring an application
should not be accounted for at all in our thinking doesn't make sense to
me anyway.


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/