On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote:

...

On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

It works on all the major distros but fails to install on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script just fails saying it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and is McAfee proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive.

So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into an rpm install?

Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, or just wants rpm to be there? Most distros allow you to install rpm, Arch is no different except it is in aur:

aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153) The RedHat Package Manager. Don't use it instead of Arch's 'pacman'.

If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably not the solution. Two package managers at once is not a good thing.

I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart. It's a script that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm files (9-MB), one 32-bit ELF program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an xml file. The script then calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which contain tons of 32-bit system libraries. These libraries have the same names as regular system libs, like libc, libm, libresolv and libcrypt. This all makes me very nervous! Arch not using rpm may be a blessing in disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a waiver to not install this McAfee root-kit.

Thanks for the help, Lew

Can't you try to install only the program itself without these libraries ? The libraries could be installable using pacman. -- Cédric Girard

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote:

...

On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

It works on all the major distros but fails to install on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script just fails saying it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and is McAfee proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive.

So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into an rpm install?

Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, or just wants rpm to be > there? Most distros allow you to install rpm, Arch is no different except it is in > aur:

aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153) The RedHat Package Manager. Don't use it instead of Arch's 'pacman'.

If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably not the solution. Two > package managers at once is not a good thing.

I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart. It's a script that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm files (9-MB), one 32-bit ELF program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an xml file. The script then calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which contain tons of 32-bit system libraries. These libraries have the same names as regular system libs, like libc, libm, libresolv and libcrypt. This all makes me very nervous! Arch not using rpm may be a blessing in disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a waiver to not install this McAfee root-kit.

Thanks for the help, Lew

What about setting up a simple tiny chroot just for this application? -- -- Dan Vrátil vratil@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: progdan@jabber.cz Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

On 10/03/2010 11:11 AM, Dan Vrátil wrote:

...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

...

On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

It works on all the major distros but fails to install on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script just fails saying it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and is McAfee proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive.

So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into an rpm install? Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, or just wants rpm to be> there? Most distros allow you to install rpm, Arch is no different except it is in> aur:

aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153) The RedHat Package Manager. Don't use it instead of Arch's 'pacman'.

If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably not the solution. Two> package managers at once is not a good thing. I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart. It's a

On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote: script that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm files (9-MB), one 32-bit ELF program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an xml file. The script then calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which contain tons of 32-bit system libraries. These libraries have the same names as regular system libs, like libc, libm, libresolv and libcrypt. This all makes me very nervous! Arch not using rpm may be a blessing in disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a waiver to not install this McAfee root-kit.

Thanks for the help, Lew What about setting up a simple tiny chroot just for this application?

That's an interesting idea, Dan. But since this package is supposed to install itself like a cancer in the OS, it wouldn't be able to perform its function in a chroot. The Windows version of this thing is intended to remove local administrative privileges so that the machine can be completely managed remotely. It can prevent unapproved programs from being loaded, and can disable installed programs that it has an issue with. Indeed, it disabled non-current versions of Adobe Acrobat a couple of weeks ago. It also has an IPS function to monitor and disable network traffic it finds threatening. It can enforce password polices and can report what a user is doing and what web sites they're visiting. It can sniff network configurations and report dual-homed hosts, natted subnets are also disallowed. I'm sure it does much more. I've been told that the Linux/Apple versions only report at this time, the more intrusive capabilities aren't yet implemented.

Thanks, Lew

Well it is just an application, not a kernel module or so, so in my opinion it does not matter if it runs in chroot or not, as it can only obtain datas from some /proc, /sys and /dev files and these can be made available in the chroot via mount (e.g. by mounting the real folders to the chroot). What I want to say is, that the application can have access to all the informations it wants, but it will just be installed separately from your beloved Arch. Dan -- -- Dan Vrátil vratil@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: progdan@jabber.cz Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:21:28 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

On 10/03/2010 01:29 PM, Dan Vrátil wrote:

...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

On 10/03/2010 11:11 AM, Dan Vrátil wrote:

...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

...

On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote: > It works on all the major distros but fails to install > on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script just fails saying > it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and is McAfee > proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive. > > So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into an rpm install? Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, or just wants rpm to be> there? Most distros allow you to install rpm, Arch is no different except it is in> aur:

aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153) The RedHat Package Manager. Don't use it instead of Arch's 'pacman'.

If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably not the solution. Two> package managers at once is not a good thing. I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart. It's a

On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote: script that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm files (9-MB), one 32-bit ELF program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an xml file. The script then calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which contain tons of 32-bit system libraries. These libraries have the same names as regular system libs, like libc, libm, libresolv and libcrypt. This all makes me very nervous! Arch not using rpm may be a blessing in disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a waiver to not install this McAfee root-kit.

Thanks for the help, Lew What about setting up a simple tiny chroot just for this application?

That's an interesting idea, Dan. But since this package is supposed to install itself like a cancer in the OS, it wouldn't be able to perform its function in a chroot. The Windows version of this thing is intended to remove local administrative privileges so that the machine can be completely managed remotely. It can prevent unapproved programs from being loaded, and can disable installed programs that it has an issue with. Indeed, it disabled non-current versions of Adobe Acrobat a couple of weeks ago. It also has an IPS function to monitor and disable network traffic it finds threatening. It can enforce password polices and can report what a user is doing and what web sites they're visiting. It can sniff network configurations and report dual-homed hosts, natted subnets are also disallowed. I'm sure it does much more. I've been told that the Linux/Apple versions only report at this time, the more intrusive capabilities aren't yet implemented.

Thanks, Lew Well it is just an application, not a kernel module or so, so in my opinion it does not matter if it runs in chroot or not, as it can only obtain datas from some /proc, /sys and /dev files and these can be made available in the chroot via mount (e.g. by mounting the real folders to the chroot). What I want to say is, that the application can have access to all the informations it wants, but it will just be installed separately from your beloved Arch.

Hi Dan,

Interesting. I wonder how one would do this? Since the package depends on RPM, could that be installed in a jail and not interfere with pacman? Or would most of a second OS need to live in the jail? Can you install a full-up Fedora or openSuSE in a jail? The jail would need access to the main /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files, wouldn't that be rather difficult to set up? A chroot that has full access to /? Interesting to contemplate...

Regards, Lew

Actually that should not be so difficult to set up. You can use program called "schroot". It mounts the real folder (/home, /dev, /proc etc) to the chroot using fstab-like file (see /etc/schroot/mount-arch32) and it also copies some essential files (like /etc/shadow and /etc/passwd) to the chroot (see /etc/schroot/copyfiles-arch32). Additionally, I think you don't need access to full /, just to /etc, /dev, /sys and /proc since that's all where the program can get any useful info or where any essential data to be watched over are located. If I'm wrong, it's not a problem to mount the folder to the chroot filesystem. The rest of the chroot's filesystem can contain whatever you want. Actually I believe that it should work even when you would have only the libs that the program is linked against and some applications that the program needs to run, you don't even have to install kernel, udev, etc. I'd recommend not to even use pacman to set up the chroot, but use RPM to set it all up from the main system, something like: rpm install base-system --root=/home/chroot --dbpath=/home/chroot/var/lib/packages (I don't know how to use rpm, just to show the idea) and then enter the chroot using schroot -c my_chroot and then just start the application from the chroot. Dan -- -- Dan Vrátil vratil@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: progdan@jabber.cz Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.

----- Original message -----

On Oct 3, 2010, at 4:59 PM, "Dan Vrátil" wrote:

...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:21:28 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

On 10/03/2010 01:29 PM, Dan Vrátil wrote:

...

...

On 10/03/2010 11:11 AM, Dan Vrátil wrote:

...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang     wrote: > On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote: > > On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote: > > > It works on all the major distros but fails to install > > > on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script > > > just fails saying > > > it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and > > > is McAfee > > > proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive. > > > > > > So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into > > > an rpm install? > > Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, > > or just wants rpm to be>    there? Most distros allow you to > > install rpm, Arch is no different except it is in>    aur: > > > > aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153) > > The RedHat Package Manager.  Don't use it instead of > > Arch's 'pacman'. > > > > If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably > > not the solution. Two>    package managers at once is not a > > good thing. > I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart. > It's a script that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm > files (9-MB), one > 32-bit ELF program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an > xml file. > The script then calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which > contain > tons of 32-bit system libraries.  These libraries have the > same names > as regular system libs, like libc, libm, libresolv and > libcrypt.  This > all makes me very nervous!  Arch not using rpm may be a > blessing in > disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a waiver to not > install this > McAfee root-kit. > > Thanks for the help, > Lew What about setting up a simple tiny chroot just for this application?

That's an interesting idea, Dan.  But since this package is supposed to install itself like a cancer in the OS, it wouldn't be able to perform its function in a chroot.  The Windows version of this thing is intended to remove local administrative privileges so that the machine can be completely managed remotely.  It can prevent unapproved programs from being loaded, and can disable installed programs that it has an issue with.  Indeed, it disabled non-current versions of Adobe Acrobat a couple of weeks ago.  It also has an IPS function to monitor and disable network traffic it finds threatening.  It can enforce password polices and can report what a user is doing and what web sites they're visiting.    It can sniff network configurations and report dual-homed hosts, natted subnets are also disallowed.  I'm sure it does much more.  I've been told that the Linux/Apple versions only report at this time, the more intrusive capabilities aren't yet implemented.

Thanks, Lew Well it is just an application, not a kernel module or so, so in my opinion it does not matter if it runs in chroot or not, as it can only obtain datas from some /proc, /sys and /dev files and these can be made available in the chroot via mount (e.g. by mounting the real folders to the chroot). What I want to say is, that the application can have access to all

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0700, Lew Wolfgang   wrote: the informations it wants, but it will just be installed separately from your beloved Arch.

Hi Dan,

Interesting.  I wonder how one would do this?  Since the package depends on RPM, could that be installed in a jail and not interfere with pacman?  Or would most of a second OS need to live in the jail? Can you install a full-up Fedora or openSuSE in a jail?  The jail would need access to the main /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files, wouldn't that be rather difficult to set up?  A chroot that has full access to /?  Interesting to contemplate...

Regards, Lew

Actually that should not be so difficult to set up. You can use program called "schroot". It mounts the real folder (/home, /dev, /proc etc) to the chroot using fstab-like file (see /etc/schroot/mount-arch32) and it also copies some essential files (like /etc/shadow and /etc/passwd) to the chroot (see /etc/schroot/copyfiles-arch32).

Additionally, I think you don't need access to full /, just to /etc, /dev, /sys and /proc since that's all where the program can get any useful info or

where any essential data to be watched over are located. If I'm wrong, it's not a problem to mount the folder to the chroot filesystem. The rest of the chroot's filesystem can contain whatever you want. Actually I believe that it should work even when you would have only the libs that the program is linked against and some applications that the program needs to run, you don't even have to install kernel, udev, etc.

I'd recommend not to even use pacman to set up the chroot, but use RPM to set it all up from the main system, something like:

rpm install base-system --root=/home/chroot --dbpath=/home/chroot/var/lib/packages (I don't know how to use rpm, just to show the idea)

and then enter the chroot using

schroot -c my_chroot

and then just start the application from the chroot.

Dan

-- -- Dan Vrátil vratil@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: progdan@jabber.cz

Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepouží vá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.

If you want to be sure it can't escape, you could try using LXC to contain the fedora system.

It is a recent kernel technology designed specifically for this purpose, and has tools to build fedora amongst other distributions.

Very easy to set up a containerized system.

C Anthony [mobile]

Hmmm the LXC looks like a pretty cool project, that's exactly what I was looking for some time ago, thanks for bringing it in. But if I understood correctly, you need to have entire system installed inside the container, which is I think a waste of diskspace for just one program, meanwhile chroot would require just default libs, bash and dependencies of that app. Dan