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]

Message-Id: <1219100824.15566.151.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:07:04 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc:	tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com, davecb@....com, david@...g.hm,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com>, rmeijer@...all.nl,
	Mihai Don??u <mdontu@...defender.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list-bounces@...sg.printk.net,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, capibara@...all.nl,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro
	to	a linux interface for on access scanning

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 00:40 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:15:24PM +0100, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com 
> > wrote:
> > > > Then there is still a question of who allows some binary to declare 
> > itself 
> > > > exempt. If that decision was a mistake, or it gets compromised 
> > security 
> > > > will be off. A very powerful mechanism which must not be easily 
> > > > accessible.  With a good cache your worries go away even without a 
> > scheme 
> > > > like this.
> > > 
> > > I have one word for you --- bittorrent.  If you are downloading a very
> > > large torrent (say approximately a gigabyte), and it contains many
> > > pdf's that are say a few megabytes a piece, and things are coming in
> > > tribbles, having either a indexing scanner or an AV scanner wake up
> > > and rescan the file from scratch each time a tiny piece of the pdf
> > > comes in is going to eat your machine alive....
> > 
> > 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 
> 
> Why do you think non-malicious applications won't write after close /
> keep file open forever?

If you ask this one more time without reading the many times I've
answered these questions I think I'm going to explode.

Permissions checks are done on open/read.  Decisions are invalidated at
mtime update, which INCLUDES mmap after close!  I don't care if you keep
your file open forever, if you wrote to it, we are just going to scan it
next time a process decided to open/read it.  Please stop confusing this
already long and almost pointless thread with implementation details
that have repeatedly been explained.

-Eric

--
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/