Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro toa linux interface for on access scanning

[david]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 18/08/2008 16:31:48:
>
> > > Huh? I was never advocating re-scan after each modification and I even
>
> > > explicitly said it does not make sense for AV not only for performance
> but
> > > because it will be useless most of the time. I thought sending out
> > > modified notification on close makes sense because it is a natural
> point,
> > > unless someone is trying to subvert which is out of scope. Other have
> > > suggested time delay and lumping up.
> >
> > You need a bit more than close I imagine, otherwise I can simply keep
> the
> > file open forever. There are lots of cases where that would be natural
> > behaviour - eg if I was to attack some kind of web forum and insert a
> > windows worm into the forum which was database backed the file would
> > probably never be closed. That seems to be one of the more common attack
> > vectors nowdays.
>
> Yes, I agree that modification notifications are needed in some cases.
>
> > > Also, just to double-check, you don't think AV scanning would read the
>
> > > whole file on every write?
> >
> > So you need the system to accumulate some kind of complete in memory set
> > of 'dirty' range lists on all I/O ? That is going to have pretty bad
> > performance impacts and serialization.
>
> No, I was just saying scanning is pretty smart, it's not some brute force
> method of scan all data that is there. It has a file type detection and
> what and how to scan is determined by that. If a file does not resemble
> any file type I don't think it gets scanned. For example take couple of
> gigabytes of zeros and try to scan that with some products. I don't think
> they will try to read the whole file.

trying to include details of where each file was updated means that you 
can't just set a single 'dirty' flag for the file (or clear the 'scanned' 
flags), you instead need to detect and notify on every write.

this is a HUGE additional load on the notification mechansim and the 
software that recieves the notifications.

just sending "fix X was scanned and now isn't" is going to be bad enough, 
you _really_ don't want to do this for every write.

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/