Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Installed library files (mostly kernel modules) not belonging to any package in tiger audit report

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Maarten Derickx

unread,
Nov 2, 2012, 4:00:01 AM11/2/12
to
Dear All,

Today I got the following in my tiger security audit:

# Checking installed files against packages...
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/init/rw/.ramfs' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.softdep' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.symbols' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.dep' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.dep.bin' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.devname' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.alias.bin' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.alias' does not belong to any package.
--WARN-- [lin001w] File `/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/modules.symbols.bin' does not belong to any package.

I suspect all the missing kernel modules are caused by me recently installing: open-vm-modules-2.6.32-5-amd64 . 
But I installed that using apt, so tiger should recognize that they belong to a package. Looking in dpkg.log it should be one of the following packages:

2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed gcc-4.3-base 4.3.5-4
2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed cpp-4.3 4.3.5-4
2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed gcc-4.3 4.3.5-4
2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed linux-headers-2.6.32-5-common 2.6.32-46
2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed linux-kbuild-2.6.32 2.6.32-1
2012-11-01 12:51:21 status installed linux-headers-2.6.32-5-amd64 2.6.32-46
2012-11-01 12:51:52 status installed open-vm-modules-2.6.32-5-amd64 1:8.4.2-261024-1+2.6.32-46

Is this a bug in one of the packages not claiming ownership of one of the files it installes?
If so how do I report this?

Thanks Maarten
0 new messages