Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753218AbYHKNqH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:46:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751426AbYHKNpz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:45:55 -0400 Received: from mail.bitdefender.com ([91.199.104.10]:44154 "EHLO mail.bitdefender.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751411AbYHKNpy (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:45:54 -0400 From: Mihai =?utf-8?q?Don=C8=9Bu?= Organization: BitDefender To: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linuxinterfaceforon access scanning Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:45:47 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Adrian Bunk , tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com, Greg KH , "Press, Jonathan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net References: <20080806105008.GF6477@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <200808070349.55882.mdontu@bitdefender.com> <20080806213904.37a33a58@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20080806213904.37a33a58@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200808111645.48177.mdontu@bitdefender.com> X-BitDefender-Scanner: Clean, Agent: BitDefender qmail 3.0.0 on mail.bitdefender.com, sigver: 7.20466 X-BitDefender-Spam: No (0) X-BitDefender-SpamStamp: v1, build 2.6.17.51344, bayes score: 500(0), pbayes score: 0(0), neunet score: 0(0), flags: [VALID_REPLY], total: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1363 Lines: 34 On Thursday 07 August 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:49:55 +0300 > > Mihai Donțu wrote: > > Well, here is one attempt. > > > > A good percentage of an AV product's job is to prevent exploitation > > of a security hole in a product before the vendor (assuming the > > vendor admits it's bug and not a misuse of the product's features). > > just to get things clear; > you're not talking about preventing the actual exploitation per se > (that would be the job of the various protection technologies) or the > containment (that would be SELinux), but more about detecting the > presence and preventing to (accidental) use of pre-canned, widely used > exploit binaries/files ? I apologize for the late reply. The answer to your question is: yes. I was planning to write some more on this subject but this is unnecessary now, because I see [almost] everyone accepted that some kind of antimalware scanning is needed and are looking for alternative (better) solutions to the patch that started all this. Can't wait to see the end result. :) Thanks, -- Mihai Donțu -- 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/