Home page logo
/

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Installation of software, and security. . .
From: Tino Wildenhain <tino () wildenhain de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:38:29 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 17.07.2005, 16:09 -0400 schrieb John Richard Moser:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Klaus Schwenk wrote:
I had some similar thoughts on that topic recently and do agree with you that
the current habit of installation handling has several problems.

First of all (at least on MS-based OS's) it's pretty hard to tell what exactly
is done by the installer. Even harmless software does not always keep a log of

Exactly my point.  How do you manage or reduce risk when you can't even
tell what changes are to be made?  An executable has to be run to truly
understand its actions; scripts can self-modify (variables run as code),
executables can have odd logic that obfuscates things from heuristics
examinations.  You can't make an auditing tool to list all changes about
to be made and actions to be taken by installing the program (aside from
a spare machine and a debugger).

...
Package managers found in Linux typically run a pre-install script to
prepare the system, and a post-install script to post-configure the
system.  These scripts are bash scripts run as root.

Installing blackdown java on Debian or Ubuntu is something you have to
be very careful about.  The pre-install asks about licensing; if you say
"No" it stores that you refused the license agreement in a debconf
database somewhere and aborts the install.  You can try to install the
package again, but it will abort.  All combinations of --purge and
manually editing the dpkg database do nothing.  I couldn't find the
debconf settings database thing it used, so I had to reinstall the system.
...

Yes, you hit the nail on the head with a jackhammer.  One discussion on
autopackage was that the devs don't want to limit the API and thus want
the prepare, install, and uninstall to be a bash script supplied by the
package "so it can do anything."  I hate this logic.  Why does it need
to be able to do "anything"?
...
maybe not directly related but I loved the installer of amigaos (2.0 and
up) which basically leave the choice to actually "try" an installation,
where all the steps and questions (based on the level you use) were run
but no file changed or moved. You could then inspect the logfile to see
what would be done before running the installer in actual install mode.
Afaic it was running some lisp-like code as script so you didnt need
external scripts.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]