Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:26 -0400 | From | David Collier-Brown <> | 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@sun.com | -- Mark Twain cell: (647) 833-9377, bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
| |