[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

    > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:15:24PM +0100,
    > 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?
    (cesky, pictures)

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-19 00:43    [W:0.021 / U:43.712 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site