linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to alinuxinterfaceforon 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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808142236230.12859@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	davecb@....com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Mihai Don??u <mdontu@...defender.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to	alinuxinterfaceforon
 access scanning

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, david@...g.hm wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, david@...g.hm wrote:
>
>> again, libmalware.so is not referring to any specific body of code, it's 
>> referring to the concept that the handling of open/mmap/read/etc and 
>> scanning is done via a userspace library rather then by the kernel. if 
>> everyone can agree on that concept then hashing out the details of _which_ 
>> library it gets put in is a smaller detail.
>
> one reason to layer scanners is that you could have one that just checks to 
> see if the file was deployed from a OS package, if it was (and still has the 
> same hash as the package manager thinks it should have) it sets a flag that 
> other scanners could look for (if they see it they can skip scanning the 
> file)

actually, instead of trying to have one scanner trust the results of 
another, a better approach would be for libmalware to look for the package 
manager approval and if it finds that it could skip asking the other 
scanners to look at it.

this sort of thing can easily be done in userspace libraries, but you 
definantly would _not_ want to do in a kernel-level enforcement mechanism.

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/