Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762149AbYHES5P (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:57:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759315AbYHESzL (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:55:11 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:35734 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757326AbYHESzK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:55:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:54:38 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: "Press, Jonathan" Cc: Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linuxinterfaceforon access scanning Message-ID: <20080805185438.GA8453@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , "Press, Jonathan" , Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <20080805103840.1aaa64a5@infradead.org> <2629CC4E1D22A64593B02C43E85553030480743B@USILMS12.ca.com> <20080805181141.GA10700@kroah.com> <2629CC4E1D22A64593B02C43E85553030480743F@USILMS12.ca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2629CC4E1D22A64593B02C43E85553030480743F@USILMS12.ca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 985 Lines: 19 On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 02:38:23PM -0400, Press, Jonathan wrote: > Is your point that Linux and Unix machines are less vulnerable to > viruses? If so, that's not relevant to my point at all. A Unix machine > can be a carrier, passing infections on to other vulnerable platforms > (guess which one). An enterprise security system sees the entire > enterprise as an integrated whole -- not just individual machines with > their own separate attributes and no impact on each other at all. Sure, but if that's the case, you don't need to have a blocking open() interface. Having inotify tell your application that a file descriptor that had been opened for writing has been closed (IN_CLOSE_WRITE) should be quite sufficient. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/