Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro toalinuxinterfaceforonaccess scanning

[Theodore Tso]

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
--
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/