On 10/03/2010 01:29 PM, Dan Vrátil wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0700, Lew Wolfgang
<wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/03/2010 11:11 AM, Dan Vrátil wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:00:08 -0700, Lew Wolfgang
<wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
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
