Gilboa Davara wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 13:47 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Gilboa Davara wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 13:15 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Gilboa Davara wrote:
The GTK2 update might have contained a number of security updates; while
having a broken update will not cause any visible corruption, it may
leave the machine open for an attack.
Do you think running "rpm -V" on the gtk2 package would be a good idea first?
It should... as long as RPM DB is not corrupted.
Being paranoid, I rather reinstall the RPM and reduce the risk.
I think I have been lucky over the years...knock on wood. I've not found
myself in a situation where an "rpm -Uvh" or "rpm -ivh" has hung or my rpm
db became corrupted. (I think I had a problem way back in the Red Hat 7,
not Fedora days....) So, I've never seen the need to use --force.
So, one last question(s), if the rpm db is corrupted isn't it likely that
"rpm -V" would fail? Would a corrupted db cause other packages to fail
verification. And finally, what are the chances that you'd have an
incorrectly installed rpm and an rpm db that was corrupted in such a manner
that the verification would succeed?
As I said, I never have run into these kinds of problems....so these
questions have only just now popped into my head.
Thanks...
P.S. Don't forget about %post.
If say, a SELinux RPM transaction hangs, the rpm -V test results will be
mostly irrelevant, as a lot of work is being done in %post.
The only way to insure a fully-working installation is RPM -Uvh --force.
Hummm.... Have to think about that.
Do rpm installations actually manipulate SELinux policies/attributes? (Other
than the selinux rpms themselves) If they do, then what prevents someone
from generating a rogue rpm that manipulates SELinux policies/attributes
outside of the installed/upgraded package?
Looks like I need to do some study...otherwise I won't be able to sleep at
night. :-)
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
