rpm -V verify purposerpm -Vf doesn't report a changed fileHow can I verify that a PGP key is imported into RPM?rpm --upgrade not upgrading?RPM package naming conventionRPM subpackage nameHow to verify the RPM database?How to verify one file of a package, not the RPM itselfRPM command stuck/FREEZE when installing RPM filerpm --verify does not inform about missing fileBuild “shadow” RPM database?rpm mock - complex rpm building

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files

Crop image to path created in TikZ?

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?

What happens when a metallic dragon and a chromatic dragon mate?

Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

Is a vector space a subspace of itself?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

How can I add custom success page

Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

New order #4: World

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

What to wear for invited talk in Canada

Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?

Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python

Copycat chess is back

"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups

COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?

Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?



rpm -V verify purpose


rpm -Vf doesn't report a changed fileHow can I verify that a PGP key is imported into RPM?rpm --upgrade not upgrading?RPM package naming conventionRPM subpackage nameHow to verify the RPM database?How to verify one file of a package, not the RPM itselfRPM command stuck/FREEZE when installing RPM filerpm --verify does not inform about missing fileBuild “shadow” RPM database?rpm mock - complex rpm building






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















I am told I should do rpm -Va because:



operating system must be configured so that the cryptographic hash of system files and commands matches vendor values... Without cryptographic integrity protections, system command and files can be altered by unauthorized users without detection



So a rpm -Va | grep '^..5' is done and if anything comes back that is supposed to be a problem.



From a clean install from DVD I can successfully meet that criteria.



However, I am also told to configure files such as /etc/ssh/sshd_config and /etc/audit/audit.rules not to mention some obvious other ones to make a system functional, and changing these of course results in these files not matching vendor values, thus the rpm -Va comes back with mainly S.5....T



Can someone explain the purpose or rationale of this? As well as how grep '^..5' is supposed to work? Is there a way to make this work such that -- yeah, I changed a .conf file, but have rpm be updated to not flag specified packages as having been altered?










share|improve this question






























    2















    I am told I should do rpm -Va because:



    operating system must be configured so that the cryptographic hash of system files and commands matches vendor values... Without cryptographic integrity protections, system command and files can be altered by unauthorized users without detection



    So a rpm -Va | grep '^..5' is done and if anything comes back that is supposed to be a problem.



    From a clean install from DVD I can successfully meet that criteria.



    However, I am also told to configure files such as /etc/ssh/sshd_config and /etc/audit/audit.rules not to mention some obvious other ones to make a system functional, and changing these of course results in these files not matching vendor values, thus the rpm -Va comes back with mainly S.5....T



    Can someone explain the purpose or rationale of this? As well as how grep '^..5' is supposed to work? Is there a way to make this work such that -- yeah, I changed a .conf file, but have rpm be updated to not flag specified packages as having been altered?










    share|improve this question


























      2












      2








      2








      I am told I should do rpm -Va because:



      operating system must be configured so that the cryptographic hash of system files and commands matches vendor values... Without cryptographic integrity protections, system command and files can be altered by unauthorized users without detection



      So a rpm -Va | grep '^..5' is done and if anything comes back that is supposed to be a problem.



      From a clean install from DVD I can successfully meet that criteria.



      However, I am also told to configure files such as /etc/ssh/sshd_config and /etc/audit/audit.rules not to mention some obvious other ones to make a system functional, and changing these of course results in these files not matching vendor values, thus the rpm -Va comes back with mainly S.5....T



      Can someone explain the purpose or rationale of this? As well as how grep '^..5' is supposed to work? Is there a way to make this work such that -- yeah, I changed a .conf file, but have rpm be updated to not flag specified packages as having been altered?










      share|improve this question
















      I am told I should do rpm -Va because:



      operating system must be configured so that the cryptographic hash of system files and commands matches vendor values... Without cryptographic integrity protections, system command and files can be altered by unauthorized users without detection



      So a rpm -Va | grep '^..5' is done and if anything comes back that is supposed to be a problem.



      From a clean install from DVD I can successfully meet that criteria.



      However, I am also told to configure files such as /etc/ssh/sshd_config and /etc/audit/audit.rules not to mention some obvious other ones to make a system functional, and changing these of course results in these files not matching vendor values, thus the rpm -Va comes back with mainly S.5....T



      Can someone explain the purpose or rationale of this? As well as how grep '^..5' is supposed to work? Is there a way to make this work such that -- yeah, I changed a .conf file, but have rpm be updated to not flag specified packages as having been altered?







      security rpm






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 28 at 19:22









      Jeff Schaller

      44.7k1163145




      44.7k1163145










      asked Mar 28 at 17:58









      ronron

      1,1802818




      1,1802818




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          To take the easy part first, the grep '^..5 portion investigates the output for lines that start with any two characters followed by a 5. That 5 represents (from man rpm):




          5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs




          as a fairly good indicator that the corresponding file has changed.



          Next, I would encourage any rpm -Va | grep ... investigation to ignore config files. These are files, like you point out, that are intended to be changed by the system administrator. Luckily, they are indicated in the rpm -Va output with a c marker:




          The format of the output is a string of 9 characters, a possible attribute marker:



          c %config configuration file.
          d %doc documentation file.
          g %ghost file (i.e. the file contents are not included in the package payload).
          l %license license file.
          r %readme readme file.


          from the package header, followed by the file name.




          ... so I would consider something along the lines of:



          sudo rpm -Va | awk '/^..5/ && $2 != "c"'


          ... which ties together the grep ^..5 idea along with ignoring files that are classified as configuration files. Alternatively, you could capture every flagged line of output and then "whitelist" config files where you've accepted the risk of change -- then, you're alerted when a presumed-static config file changes.



          Without repackaging the RPM's, I do not know of a way to update the digest in the RPM database to indicate that you've changed a config file, which is why I suggest the above workarounds.






          share|improve this answer























          • I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

            – Jeff Schaller
            Mar 28 at 19:32











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f509282%2frpm-v-verify-purpose%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          To take the easy part first, the grep '^..5 portion investigates the output for lines that start with any two characters followed by a 5. That 5 represents (from man rpm):




          5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs




          as a fairly good indicator that the corresponding file has changed.



          Next, I would encourage any rpm -Va | grep ... investigation to ignore config files. These are files, like you point out, that are intended to be changed by the system administrator. Luckily, they are indicated in the rpm -Va output with a c marker:




          The format of the output is a string of 9 characters, a possible attribute marker:



          c %config configuration file.
          d %doc documentation file.
          g %ghost file (i.e. the file contents are not included in the package payload).
          l %license license file.
          r %readme readme file.


          from the package header, followed by the file name.




          ... so I would consider something along the lines of:



          sudo rpm -Va | awk '/^..5/ && $2 != "c"'


          ... which ties together the grep ^..5 idea along with ignoring files that are classified as configuration files. Alternatively, you could capture every flagged line of output and then "whitelist" config files where you've accepted the risk of change -- then, you're alerted when a presumed-static config file changes.



          Without repackaging the RPM's, I do not know of a way to update the digest in the RPM database to indicate that you've changed a config file, which is why I suggest the above workarounds.






          share|improve this answer























          • I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

            – Jeff Schaller
            Mar 28 at 19:32















          1














          To take the easy part first, the grep '^..5 portion investigates the output for lines that start with any two characters followed by a 5. That 5 represents (from man rpm):




          5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs




          as a fairly good indicator that the corresponding file has changed.



          Next, I would encourage any rpm -Va | grep ... investigation to ignore config files. These are files, like you point out, that are intended to be changed by the system administrator. Luckily, they are indicated in the rpm -Va output with a c marker:




          The format of the output is a string of 9 characters, a possible attribute marker:



          c %config configuration file.
          d %doc documentation file.
          g %ghost file (i.e. the file contents are not included in the package payload).
          l %license license file.
          r %readme readme file.


          from the package header, followed by the file name.




          ... so I would consider something along the lines of:



          sudo rpm -Va | awk '/^..5/ && $2 != "c"'


          ... which ties together the grep ^..5 idea along with ignoring files that are classified as configuration files. Alternatively, you could capture every flagged line of output and then "whitelist" config files where you've accepted the risk of change -- then, you're alerted when a presumed-static config file changes.



          Without repackaging the RPM's, I do not know of a way to update the digest in the RPM database to indicate that you've changed a config file, which is why I suggest the above workarounds.






          share|improve this answer























          • I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

            – Jeff Schaller
            Mar 28 at 19:32













          1












          1








          1







          To take the easy part first, the grep '^..5 portion investigates the output for lines that start with any two characters followed by a 5. That 5 represents (from man rpm):




          5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs




          as a fairly good indicator that the corresponding file has changed.



          Next, I would encourage any rpm -Va | grep ... investigation to ignore config files. These are files, like you point out, that are intended to be changed by the system administrator. Luckily, they are indicated in the rpm -Va output with a c marker:




          The format of the output is a string of 9 characters, a possible attribute marker:



          c %config configuration file.
          d %doc documentation file.
          g %ghost file (i.e. the file contents are not included in the package payload).
          l %license license file.
          r %readme readme file.


          from the package header, followed by the file name.




          ... so I would consider something along the lines of:



          sudo rpm -Va | awk '/^..5/ && $2 != "c"'


          ... which ties together the grep ^..5 idea along with ignoring files that are classified as configuration files. Alternatively, you could capture every flagged line of output and then "whitelist" config files where you've accepted the risk of change -- then, you're alerted when a presumed-static config file changes.



          Without repackaging the RPM's, I do not know of a way to update the digest in the RPM database to indicate that you've changed a config file, which is why I suggest the above workarounds.






          share|improve this answer













          To take the easy part first, the grep '^..5 portion investigates the output for lines that start with any two characters followed by a 5. That 5 represents (from man rpm):




          5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs




          as a fairly good indicator that the corresponding file has changed.



          Next, I would encourage any rpm -Va | grep ... investigation to ignore config files. These are files, like you point out, that are intended to be changed by the system administrator. Luckily, they are indicated in the rpm -Va output with a c marker:




          The format of the output is a string of 9 characters, a possible attribute marker:



          c %config configuration file.
          d %doc documentation file.
          g %ghost file (i.e. the file contents are not included in the package payload).
          l %license license file.
          r %readme readme file.


          from the package header, followed by the file name.




          ... so I would consider something along the lines of:



          sudo rpm -Va | awk '/^..5/ && $2 != "c"'


          ... which ties together the grep ^..5 idea along with ignoring files that are classified as configuration files. Alternatively, you could capture every flagged line of output and then "whitelist" config files where you've accepted the risk of change -- then, you're alerted when a presumed-static config file changes.



          Without repackaging the RPM's, I do not know of a way to update the digest in the RPM database to indicate that you've changed a config file, which is why I suggest the above workarounds.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 28 at 19:30









          Jeff SchallerJeff Schaller

          44.7k1163145




          44.7k1163145












          • I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

            – Jeff Schaller
            Mar 28 at 19:32

















          • I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

            – Jeff Schaller
            Mar 28 at 19:32
















          I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

          – Jeff Schaller
          Mar 28 at 19:32





          I've just discovered meuh's answer here which goes into more detail regarding an RPM being able to exclude certain files from future verification.

          – Jeff Schaller
          Mar 28 at 19:32

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f509282%2frpm-v-verify-purpose%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -rpm, security

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mobil Contents History Mobil brands Former Mobil brands Lukoil transaction Mobil UK Mobil Australia Mobil New Zealand Mobil Greece Mobil in Japan Mobil in Canada Mobil Egypt See also References External links Navigation menuwww.mobil.com"Mobil Corporation"the original"Our Houston campus""Business & Finance: Socony-Vacuum Corp.""Popular Mechanics""Lubrite Technologies""Exxon Mobil campus 'clearly happening'""Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search""The Lion and the Moose - How 2 Executives Pulled off the Biggest Merger Ever""ExxonMobil Press Release""Lubricants""Archived copy"the original"Mobil 1™ and Mobil Super™ motor oil and synthetic motor oil - Mobil™ Motor Oils""Mobil Delvac""Mobil Industrial website""The State of Competition in Gasoline Marketing: The Effects of Refiner Operations at Retail""Mobil Travel Guide to become Forbes Travel Guide""Hotel Rankings: Forbes Merges with Mobil"the original"Jamieson oil industry history""Mobil news""Caltex pumps for control""Watchdog blocks Caltex bid""Exxon Mobil sells service station network""Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited is New Zealand's oldest oil company, with predecessor companies having first established a presence in the country in 1896""ExxonMobil subsidiaries have a business history in New Zealand stretching back more than 120 years. We are involved in petroleum refining and distribution and the marketing of fuels, lubricants and chemical products""Archived copy"the original"Exxon Mobil to Sell Its Japanese Arm for $3.9 Billion""Gas station merger will end Esso and Mobil's long run in Japan""Esso moves to affiliate itself with PC Optimum, no longer Aeroplan, in loyalty point switch""Mobil brand of gas stations to launch in Canada after deal for 213 Loblaws-owned locations""Mobil Nears Completion of Rebranding 200 Loblaw Gas Stations""Learn about ExxonMobil's operations in Egypt""Petrol and Diesel Service Stations in Egypt - Mobil"Official websiteExxon Mobil corporate websiteMobil Industrial official websiteeeeeeeeDA04275022275790-40000 0001 0860 5061n82045453134887257134887257

          Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

          Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant