lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning
Hi!

> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:15:24PM +0100, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.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?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-19 00:43    [W:0.483 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site