On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 04:47:59PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 07:32:34PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote: > > (sorry for the late reply, just got back from holiday) > > > > 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. :-) > > > > 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. > > 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 -- They're all fools. Don't worry. Darwin may be slow, but he'll eventually get them. -- Matthew Lammers in alt.sysadmin.recovery
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
