Prev: Micoshaft oriffice no more! - Use OpenOffice
Next: Retrieve (public) certificate chain from remote HTTPS server
From: Whiskers on 13 Jan 2010 18:11
On 2010-01-13, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and following
> the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have a look at
> BitDefender.
>
> The package available for download ends in rpm.run which the Fedora
> package manager says it doesn't understand, and I don't blame it,
> neither do I..!
>
> How the **** do I install
> BitDefender-Antivirus-Scanner-7.6-4.linux-gcc4x.i586.rpm.run
>
>
> Ivor

Open the file using a text editor (eg hit F3 when highlighting the file in
mc). In fact, mc may even be able to open the file as if it were a
directory; it can do that with tarballs and normal RPM files. If the
place you got the file from lacks instructions, then they should be built
into the file you downloaded. If not - well, I'll let you guess what my
advice would be in those circumstances!

But why do you want an anti-virus program at all?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: unruh on 13 Jan 2010 19:48
On 2010-01-14, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/01/10 22:04, alexd wrote:
>> Meanwhile, at the uk.comp.os.linux Job Justification Hearings, Ivor Jones
>> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>>
>>> You can't/won't tell me the answer either, then..?
>>>
>>> Thanks (not).
>>
>> Before posting your pissy response, had you considered that chris might not
>> have known the answer to your question?
>
> If he didn't know the answer, why post at all..?
>
> I feel like I should give up on this group, as a newbie I thought I
> might get some help, instead all I get is pithy insults.

Who insulted you? My comments were directed at the packagers of the
program. Others also questioned the security and usefulness of the
program.

I told you it was probably an executable, which would install the
program, and that that made it a highly insecure program. It is idiotic
for the writer of an antivirus program to ask you to run a program ( as
root) from an unkown location. If I wanted to install a virus into your
machine, that is what I would do.
Others made the same point.

>
> Ivor
>
From: Martin Gregorie on 13 Jan 2010 20:57
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:47:32 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:

> On 13/01/10 09:08, unruh wrote:
>> On 2010-01-13, Ivor Jones<ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and
>>> following the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have
>>> a look at BitDefender.
>>>
>>> The package available for download ends in rpm.run which the Fedora
>>> package manager says it doesn't understand, and I don't blame it,
>>> neither do I..!
>>>
>>> How the **** do I install
>>> BitDefender-Antivirus-Scanner-7.6-4.linux-gcc4x.i586.rpm.run
>>
>> I presume they want you to make it executable and then execute that
>> file.
>> I also assume that this is done to demonstrate that if you are stupid
>> enough to take an arbitrary file from off the web, and run it, you
>> deserve everything you get.
>
> I assume you are too stupid to give a sensible reply.
>
> Plonk.
>
I'd unplonk him if I was you and crawl a bit. You're coming across as an
arrogant stranger right now.

I've seen a few packages distributed this way. They've all been scripts
containing some ASCII representation of a binary archive. Since web
browsers, FTP etc are too sensible to download a text file with the
execute bit set, you do as Bill said:
- use chmod to make the file executable
- run it to reconstitute the archive (an RPM in all the cases I've seen)
- unpack and install the archive (rpm does both).


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
From: Andy Botterill on 14 Jan 2010 02:24
Ivor Jones wrote:
> On 14/01/10 01:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:47:32 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>

>> I'd unplonk him if I was you and crawl a bit. You're coming across as an
>> arrogant stranger right now.
>
> Hmm. I ask a simple question and all I get are comments which do little
> or nothing to answer my question. If that's arrogance then so be it.

Going back to you original question. I've used yum for some time and
rpm's for some time and have not seen an rpm.run file.

On it's own that would make me suspicious. By all means download it.
Open it with an editor of your choice and see if it's a script or an
executable.

If it's a script does it look sensible.

If it's an executable I'd be very wary about running it. Were there any
reviews from a trusted source? Did it come a companies website.

Looking at http://www.sharpened.net/helpcenter/file_extension.php?run
there are two known uses for the extension .run. Neither of those refer
to unix/linux.

I am aware that you can have any extension that you like under unix.

I would tend not to run this unless somebody else has used it with no
issues.

I wish I could be more positive but that's the way I see it. Andy

>
> I asked how to install this file. Why I want to do it and whether I am
> taking a risk by so doing is my concern, nobody else's. The comment
> above "you deserve everything you get" *is* arrogance and is ample cause
> for a "plonk" in my opinion.
>
> If someone can answer the question asked then they should do so, or say
> nothing.
>
>> I've seen a few packages distributed this way. They've all been scripts
>> containing some ASCII representation of a binary archive. Since web
>> browsers, FTP etc are too sensible to download a text file with the
>> execute bit set, you do as Bill said:
>> - use chmod to make the file executable
>> - run it to reconstitute the archive (an RPM in all the cases I've seen)
>> - unpack and install the archive (rpm does both).
>
> Thankyou. That's all I wanted to know. Why couldn't someone have said
> this in the first place..?
>
>
> Ivor
From: chris on 14 Jan 2010 05:11
On 13/01/10 20:48, Ivor Jones wrote:
> On 13/01/10 13:47, chris wrote:
>> On 13/01/10 08:08, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and following
>>> the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have a look at
>>> BitDefender.
>>
>> I personally think that was the worst group test I've seen them or
>> anyone else do for a long time.
>>
>> They didn't explain what their scoring was for finding viruses, which is
>> the only point for having AV software, and they picked the one which
>> used upto 5x the RAM of the others! In Windows' tests RAM hungry AV
>> tools get murdered for taking too much system resources.
>>
>
> You can't/won't tell me the answer either, then..?

If you're idiotic enough to not be able to RTFM, then no.

A couple of minutes of cursory searching of the BitDefender website
revealed a very nice Installation pdf.

Off you pop...
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Micoshaft oriffice no more! - Use OpenOffice
Next: Retrieve (public) certificate chain from remote HTTPS server