malware-list-bounces@dmesg.printk.net wrote on 2008-08-15 14:16:21:

quoted text
> 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.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/