Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [SOLVED] Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The last place I look
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Question [SOLVED] Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    Hello all,

    I've just run tiger security scanner, and checked out the log file. Most of it is pretty innocuous or Hardy-specific, but there are a few failures that concern me.

    These messages seem to say that the kernel(s) i have installed does not match the checksums:

    Code:
    # Checking md5sums of installed files
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.pcimap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.dep' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.ieee1394map' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.usbmap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.isapnpmap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.seriomap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.alias' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-16-generic/modules.symbols' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-16-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.pcimap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.dep' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.ieee1394map' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.usbmap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.isapnpmap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.seriomap' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.alias' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    
    # FAIL [lin005f]Installed file `/lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/modules.symbols' checksum differs from installed package 'linux-image-2.6.24-19-generic'.
    I also notice these messages:

    Code:
    #
    
    # Checking device permissions...
    
    # FAIL [dev002f]/dev/log has world permissions
    
    # FAIL [dev002f]/dev/nvidia0 has world permissions
    
    # FAIL [dev002f]/dev/nvidiactl has world permissions
    so does anyone have any ideas on what to do about this (or is it a non-issue)? I would like to be able to clear up the world permissions issue if nothing else. Also if someone else could replicate these same messages, I would feel much better about it.

    I've attached my tiger log in it's entirety. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Thanks Folks!
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by doas777; September 9th, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason: clarity

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The last place I look
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    bump

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    60

    Re: Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    I can confirm I am receiving the same messages about kernel checksums after running tiger.

    Is this something I should worry about?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The last place I look
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnightsun View Post
    I can confirm I am receiving the same messages about kernel checksums after running tiger.

    Is this something I should worry about?

    I wish I could say no, but I am quite reassured that someone is able to confirm the messages. the checksum failure indicates that the module may have been tampered with.

    I've been operating under the assumption that it's a system specific false-positive, as I have no real reason to believe that my system has been rooted. but then again, if it's a decent kit, I wouldn't ever know it was there.

    if we can find another willing person to run tiger on a system with 2.6.24.19, we can probably call it solved.

    Thanks for responding. you are most likely safe, and I feel a little better about it.

    have fun,
    Franklin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Williams Lake
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    I get the same message on a fresh clean installation of Intrepid Alpha5, I also get the message on my server running hardy, so I would say it is safe to ignore it.

    Jim

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The last place I look
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Tiger output: kernel checksums don't match?

    Quote Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post
    I get the same message on a fresh clean installation of Intrepid Alpha5, I also get the message on my server running hardy, so I would say it is safe to ignore it.

    Jim
    Excelent! Thanks all! I shall mark this as solved.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •