[arch-general] RPM Question

Dan Vrátil vratil at progdansoft.com
Sun Oct 3 16:29:53 EDT 2010

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
it does not matter if it runs in chroot or not, as it can only obtain
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
What I want to say is, that the application can have access to all the
it wants, but it will just be installed separately from your beloved


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

More information about the arch-general mailing list