[arch-general] RPM Question

[Dan Vrátil]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0700, Lew Wolfgang
<wolfgang at sweet-haven.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/2010 11:11 AM, Dan Vrátil wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang
>> <wolfgang at sweet-haven.com>  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 the
informations
it wants, but it will just be installed separately from your beloved
Arch.


Dan


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