Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759505AbYHNOA2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:00:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759378AbYHNN7v (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:59:51 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:40506 "EHLO gprs189-60.eurotel.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751213AbYHNN7u (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:59:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:56:13 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Adrian Bunk , davecb@sun.com, Greg KH , "Press, Jonathan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net, Mihai Don??u Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linuxinterfaceforon access scanning Message-ID: <20080814125613.GB2262@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20080813065401.1bbdcb07@infradead.org> <20080813141618.696833764EA@pmx1.sophos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080813141618.696833764EA@pmx1.sophos.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2542 Lines: 51 On Wed 2008-08-13 15:16:12, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote on 13/08/2008 14:54:01: > > > > I am not sure what you are suggesting, and I may have missed the > > > libmalware proposal (I don't see any mention of that specific idea in > > > any other message). However, just to be clear... At no point did we > > > suggest that the kernel would do any scanning. What we have been > > > interested in is a mechanism that can allow a scanning application to > > > be notified by the kernel of specific i/o events, for those events to > > > be blocked by the kernel until a user-space scan is done, and then the > > > user-space scan sends back allow or deny, at which point the i/o event > > > returns to the caller -- either success or error. This is the only > > > way that malware can be guaranteed of being detected when it is used > > > (for local application purposes or for transmission to another > > > platform) or created. > > > > this is a very broad statement that ignores the LD_PRELOAD approach, > > and thus not true. > > LD_PRELOAD does not solve at least knfsd and suid binaries. But we are > going in circles. :) Yes, there are about 5 suid binaries on typical linux system. Link them to libmalware by hand. > > > Also, a solution that requires applications to be modified will not > > > work, because there is no way that we would be able to get ALL > > > applications on the machines to be modified in the required ways. If > > > ANY applications are not so modified, then you have an unacceptable > > > > you don't need to modify applications to make them use a library... > > Same is true for a kernel solution. Plus, it also works for those who make > system calls directly, knfsd and suid binaries, and we can have cheap and > ultra-efficient caching. Not much kernel code, even less complex kernel > code and unmeasurable impact when not used and compiled in. What are the > big technical objections to that? That is does not work? (Neither does LD_PRELOAD; it still has the old mmap problem. Too bad, but at least you get 99.9% coverage of all the apps). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/