linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [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:	Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:26 -0400
From:	David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, capibara@...all.nl,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, david@...g.hm,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net,
	Mihai Don??u <mdontu@...defender.com>,
	Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	rmeijer@...all.nl
Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to a
 linux interface for on access scanning

tvrtko.ursulin wrote:
>>Huh? I was never advocating re-scan after each modification and I even 
>>explicitly said it does not make sense for AV not only for performance but 
>>because it will be useless most of the time. I thought sending out 
>>modified notification on close makes sense because it is a natural point, 
>>unless someone is trying to subvert which is out of scope. Other have 
>>suggested time delay and lumping up.

Alan Cox wrote: 
> You need a bit more than close I imagine, otherwise I can simply keep the
> file open forever. There are lots of cases where that would be natural
> behaviour - eg if I was to attack some kind of web forum and insert a
> windows worm into the forum which was database backed the file would
> probably never be closed. That seems to be one of the more common attack
> vectors nowdays.

  I suspect we're saying "on close" when what's really meant is
"opened for write". In the latter case, the notification would tell
the user-space program to watch for changes, possibly by something as
simple as doing a stat now and another when it gets around to 
deciding if it should scan the file. I see lots of room for
user-space alternatives for change detection, depending on how much
state it keeps. Rsync-like, perhaps?

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown            | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto      | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@....com                 |                      -- Mark Twain
cell: (647) 833-9377, bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
--
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/