[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:0.020 / U:11.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site