On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 04:47:59PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 07:32:34PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > (sorry for the late reply, just got back from holiday)
> >=20
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:29:56PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > As I mentioned in my Linux.conf.au presentation a year and a half ago,
> > > the main use of Streams in Windows to date has been for system
> > > crackers to hide trojan horse code and rootkits so that system
> > > administrators couldn't find them.  :-)
> >=20
> > The only valid use of Streams in Windows I've seen was a virus checker
> > that stored a hash of the file in a separate stream. Checking a file
> > was a matter of rehashing it and comparing against the hash stored in
> > the special hash data stream for that particular file.
>=20
> And even that's not a valid use.  All the virus would have to do is to
> infect the file, and then update the "special hash data stream".  Why
> is it that when programmers are told about streams as a potential
> technology choice, it makes their thinking become fuzzy?  :-)

I meant valid like "not used as malware". I agree a virus could
recompute the hash and go unnoticed.


Erik

--=20
They're all fools. Don't worry. Darwin may be slow, but he'll
eventually get them. -- Matthew Lammers in alt.sysadmin.recovery