> -----Original Message-----malware- malware of for matter. of that I think you may have missed the point of any such statement. Just to clarify... The model does not exclude root-owned processes from the notification and scanning sequence. If root attempts to execute a file, that file would be scanned before the execution is allowed. If a root-owned process attempts to open a file, that access would be blocked until the file is scanned. If a root-owned process closes a file that has been written to, that file would be scanned. In addition, to generalize from the incorrect idea that the actions of root are not being defended against to the idea that the possible impacts of an administrator's actions in configuring an application should not be accounted for at all in our thinking doesn't make sense to me anyway. Jon Press --
| Sunil Naidu | Re: Linux 2.6.20-rc6 |
| Alan Cox | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Chris Snook | Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children. |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: [PATCH 10/11] avoid kobject name conflict with different namespaces |
