[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-18 19:45    [W:1.909 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site