mailing list archives
RE: Installation of software, and security. . .
From: "Burton Strauss" <Burton () SmallNetSolutions com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:24:39 -0500
I think you are wrong. Suppose you do create that (mythical) complete set
of actions inside the package manager.
You can't add security - by definition if you run an rpm-type install you
are root, so there's nothing new.
You can't use something like SELinux unless you split the package in two (a
god-equivalent version to add the permissions for the install to the SElinux
databases and then a non-root install using those permissions). So instead
of hacking into the install, just hack into the god-equiv part).
All you've done for yourself is to create another (mini) 'language' the
packager has to learn, instead of using good ole
Where there could be gains are in a small number of those 'hard to do right'
actions, which are usually erroneously scripted. But as it is, many RPMs
(and I'm guilty here), don't use what IS available. So adding more things
won't really help that much either.
Fixing package scripts to take advantage of your new, wonderful actions
would be a massive task, across 1000s of packages (and egos) to fix.
So if there's nothing gained, well, why bother?
However, there is somewhere you can affect things - and that is within rpm
itself. How: enable/force better logging of the actions performed during a
script. Down to the line-of-a-script level if you want. That would be
effective/useful, even if nobody ever fixed up a script.
From: Tim Nelson [mailto:tim.nelson () webalive biz]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:01 PM
To: John Richard Moser
Cc: Klaus Schwenk; bugtraq () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Installation of software, and security. . .
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
like a complete mess. Far too many programs wouldn't need an
installation in the first place. And it's hard to give end users a
rule of thumb on how to handle installation programs when there is no
real agreement on what installers should
(not) do. At least from my POV.
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"?
I think you're both right :). I agree that packages need to be able
to do anything, but it'd be nice if we could try to eliminate the pre and
post install scripts.
One thing that would be useful is if someone could look at the
things that are typically done in pre/post install scripts, and then
integrate those into the package manager. We have a set of custom RPMs
here, and they do a variety of things in the pre and post install scripts,
but the main ones are:
- Reconfigure other software; apache never needs this, because it
uses the conf.d directory, but the tomcat we use doesn't seem to
work this way, and it should
- Service reloads; after we add a file which does the apache config,
we need to reload apache; if RPM supported us going
"%reload apache", then we wouldn't need the post-install script
My suggested solution would be to:
1. Build in to RPM (or whatever) any relatively harmless features
which are regularly used (eg. reload)
2. Issue a security warning and quit for any packages that have
pre/post install scripts, and any actions that might cause trouble
3. Set --with-scripts (or something) to enable running scripts, and
--with-actions to enable potentially troublesome actions (eg.
reload), or --without-actions to just install files and not do the
P: 03 9934 0888
F: 03 9934 0899
E: tim.nelson () webalive biz
Level 1, Innovation Building
1010 La Trobe Street
Docklands Melbourne VIC 3008
This email (including all attachments) is intended solely for the named
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information. If you receive it in error, please let us know by reply email,
delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is also
subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or
transmitted without the written consent of the copyright owner.
Emails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects
and may not be successfully replicated on other systems. We give no
warranties in relation to these matters. If you have any doubts about the
authenticity of an email purportedly sent by us, please contact us
Re: Installation of software, and security. . . joop gerritse (Jul 21)
Re: Installation of software, and security. . . Alexander Klimov (Jul 19)