Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:40:58 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |