Re: [ros-dev] Security Suite

[Sarocet]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Casper Hornstrup" ch(a)csh-consult.dk
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Security Suite


>   So it's a performance optimization? Once an
> executable image is first
>  cleared by the virus scanner, it doesn't have to check the file for
>  viruses again until the file is written to. I would imagine that any
>  mature virus scanner would keep track of files that were recently
>  scanned so it doesn't have to scan them again.
>
>  Casper 

Virus scanners can do whatever they want. Of course, they should keeping 
track of files, but it's an internal implementation. I'm not wanting users 
to avoid virus scanners. I'm talking about a way to ensure security on ROS, 
not to discard virus scanners.


Mike:
"That would be extremely difficult to do. You're then expecting the 
filesystem to know everything about every single file that is on the 
system."
I'm not expecting the FS to know everything. Only to know when files change, 
and i think it's pretty easy as programs must use system calls to change 
files.

"it'd make more sense to try to get things so that they don't run with 
privileges that are able to really do any damage"
If the programs doesn't have +x, they are not expected to be run, so they 
should run with any privilege. If the program can be run, then we should 
determine what is privileged to do, they don't exclude (but programs will 
usually be run under the privileges of user's account).

"I don't +x my PHP scripts ..." - I don't talk about making php files 
executables (they are not .exe, are they?), i'm talking of a way to control 
that files are not modified, and then programs should use it, to control 
what are files expecting it to do.

About the FAT. I agree that FAT has not chance of improve, i was talking 
that if i has a FAT partition, the system should have some 'hack' to 
remember the attrib.

"...users tend to be pretty bad housekeepers when it comes to computing. 
It's best to leave the system work without
trying to introduce new points of failure..."
Well, if it's not implemented, there's not such limitation so it's not a new 
point of failure. It's a new control method. However, it could be ok to have 
it pre-configured to reset +x autamatically each week, for example.

"It actually sounds like it'd create a veritable load of problems; 
essentially, breaking compatibility with Win32 and how Windows does things. 
Remember, the system needs to come out being compatible, that's one of the 
design goals."
It doesn't need to break compatibility. Programs should know that 
LoadLibrary can fail, and if they want to run a program, that program can 
even not exist.

"It sounds like one of the better ways to go about handling this would be to 
use the process management aspects of the system to reduce the execution 
priority of the virus scanner toolset; this would enable the system to not 
lose any performance to a virus-scanner, while keeping the system running at 
a proper speed.  I don't think changing the system's interfaces is the 
answer to this, in any case." what are you talking about?? :S

Summing up, this would only be a new layer to check files. I can be so soft 
as a "accept to all", search for virus, ask the user for permission (as 
firewalls do), or determine in function of the folder, filename and date if 
the program can run or send a copy to an online virus scanning while 
shutdowning the computer and calling the police.
ReactOS is an open OS, so many implementations would be available, and 
everyone could make its favourite without problems. That's the way i'd like 
it to work, a way i think better than microsoft's of giving execute 
permission to everyfile. Specially if it's considered that windows antivirus 
will not work in a long time.
But if ROS community determine that it's not a good idea, i have no problem.