lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.
Date
From
> -----Original Message-----
> From: malware-list-bounces@dmesg.printk.net [mailto:malware-list-
> bounces@dmesg.printk.net] On Behalf Of tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:31 AM
> To: Theodore Tso
> Cc: peterz@infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malware-
> list@lists.printk.net; hch@infradead.org; viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk;
> andi@firstfloor.org; malware-list-bounces@dmesg.printk.net;
> alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Arjan van de Ven
> Subject: Re: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.


> Hm, maybe by implementing a facility with which a client can register
it's
> interface usage intent? Something like:
>
> register(I_HAVE_NO_INTEREST_IN_CONTENT);
> register(I_WANT_TO_EXAMINE_CONTENT);
>
> All former ones would run first because they only want to have the
> opportunity to block and do something unrelated to file content (like
> HSMs), and later group would be ran last since they want to examine
the
> content.
>
> Ordering inside those two groups is not important because I don't see
how
> a model other than restrictive can make sense with content security
> scanning.

I'm not sure I understand why "interest in content" means not blocking,
and vice versa. However, I think this is a good idea if made more
explicit, i.e.:

> register(BLOCK);
> register(DON'T_BLOCK);


Jon Press



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-14 14:07    [W:0.112 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site