On 10/21/2009 07:47 AM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:40:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
In most cases, you can get that information from the original RPM
compared to the system... if you have the RPM :).
rpm -Vppackage_file_goes_here
Which is pretty much what I
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:40:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
In most cases, you can get that information from the original RPM
compared to the system... if you have the RPM :).
rpm -Vp package_file_goes_here
Which is pretty much what I want, just pulling the data from an external
Am 2009-10-21 08:47, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:40:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
In most cases, you can get that information from the original RPM
compared to the system... if you have the RPM :).
rpm -Vppackage_file_goes_here
Which is pretty much what I
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
information for every RPM ever built by koji.
The idea would be to have a
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 08:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
Le Mar 20 octobre 2009 10:20, Tomas Mraz a écrit :
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
included in Fedora does
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
contain known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file
that was once included in
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust your local RPM database
(which may have been
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
too, so:
[pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf [%{filedigests}
%{filenames}\n] *.rpm |wc
430716 804104 47467960
That has to be databased
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
too, so:
[pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf [%{filedigests} %{filenames}\n]
*.rpm |wc
430716
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
the information that way.
That would be a solution, of course, but keeping the files
Am 2009-10-20 14:12, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
the information that way.
That would be a
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:37:39 +0200, nodata wrote
It sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me.
Well, the problem is being able to determine whether the files on
your system have been compromised, which seems like a sensible idea
to me.
Here's a better idea:
* Host the config
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
contain known vulnerabilities and
Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote
Record original copies of the config files and tuck them away - heck
you could save off a copy of the pkg hdrs if you wanted to.
Hm. The
nodata wrote:
Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
[...]
in fact you could even be super-duper cool and check the config
files into some sort of scm so you could record state...
-sv
and in one swipe enterprise configuration file management becomes a
piece of cake.
bung in a file
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
included in
Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:00:23AM +0200, nodata wrote:
Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
Having a hash list of well known files might also help in forensics
analysis to find suspicious files. Also with determining the correct RPM
NVR one could use the repo metadata to check wether
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Ralf Ertzinger fed...@camperquake.de wrote:
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we
21 matches
Mail list logo
