Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757565AbYHONWd (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753191AbYHONWY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:24 -0400 Received: from pmx1.sophos.com ([213.31.172.16]:43162 "EHLO pmx1.sophos.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753090AbYHONWX (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080815131621.GK13048@mit.edu> To: Theodore Tso Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to alinuxinterfaceforonaccess scanning MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006 From: douglas.leeder@sophos.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:22:27 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/Servers/Sophos(Release 7.0.3|September 26, 2007) at 15/08/2008 14:22:22, Serialize complete at 15/08/2008 14:22:22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20080815132227.6BF0431678F@pmx1.sophos.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1898 Lines: 46 malware-list-bounces@dmesg.printk.net wrote on 2008-08-15 14:16:21: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 08:57:48AM -0400, Press, Jonathan wrote: > > That may just be a question of terminology. If the bits are construed > > not as clean/dirty/infected, but as "I care about this file" vs. "I > > don't care about this file" then the rubber gloves come off. > > Sure, as long as we're very clear about the semantics of the bits. If > the bits are not persistent, but which get dropped if the inode is > every evicted from memory, and it's considered OK, or even desirable, > to rescan the file when it is brought back into memory, that may be > acceptable to the rubber gloves folks (make people go through lots > superflous of security scans, even when they are transfering betewen > flights --- security is always more important than passengers' > convenience!), but perhaps not to other applications such as file > indexers, who would view rescanning files that have already been > scanned, and not have been modified, as a waste of time, battery, CPU > and disk bandwidth, etc. > > As I understand it, the TALPA proposal had non-persistent > clean/dirty/infected bits. > > - Ted Yes the current proposal has temporary markers in the in-memory representation if inodes. This is a problem for current anti-malware scanning, as virus data updates come every few hours (at which point the entire clean/infected state has to be cleared), so the loss after a reboot is limited. -- Douglas Leeder Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United Kingdom. Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20. -- 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/