Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta. | Date | Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:40:09 -0400 | From | "Press, Jonathan" <> |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: david@lang.hm [mailto:david@lang.hm] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:33 PM > To: Press, Jonathan > Cc: Peter Zijlstra; Helge Hafting; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malware- > list@lists.printk.net; hch@infradead.org; andi@firstfloor.org; > viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk; alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Arjan van de Ven > Subject: RE: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta. > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Press, Jonathan wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: david@lang.hm [mailto:david@lang.hm] > >>> The problem is that you have to account for the cases where the malware > >>> made it onto the system even if you were trying to catch it ahead of > >>> time. For example: > >>> > >>> - Administrator turns off or reduces AV protection for some reason for > >>> some period of time. It happens all the time. > >> > >> according to the threat model actions of the administrator do not matter. > > > > Sorry, I don't know what you mean. > > the threat model that was posted two days ago in the initial message of > this thread specificly stated that actions of root are not something that > this is trying to defend against.
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
| |