<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic swverify issues. How serious? in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877435#M100019</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:39:54 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-01-08T19:39:54Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877435#M100019</link>
      <description />
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:39:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877435#M100019</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T19:39:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877436#M100020</link>
      <description>Wait!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Let me guess.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;PHCO_27671&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;swverify is screwed right?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:49:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877436#M100020</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T19:49:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877437#M100021</link>
      <description>you beat me to it &lt;BR /&gt;I was going to suggest PHCO_27671</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:55:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877437#M100021</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paul Sperry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T19:55:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877438#M100022</link>
      <description>We get swverify issues all of the time, especially after we tighten down loose permissions.  &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Most swverify errors seem okay (I wish I could make them go away).  You'll even get patches that conflict on permissions.  I suppose if you're a wiz with SD-UX, you could figure out how to poke the control files to prevent the errors.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I'll look into &lt;BR /&gt;-checksum problems (someone may have tampered with a binary)&lt;BR /&gt;-size problems&lt;BR /&gt;-date problems&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Ignore permission problems, use another tool to track permissions.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If I get an error in an area of concern, I disposition the error - sometimes it's a patch problem.  If you can't disposition the error - worry about having been compromised (security).&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:14:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877438#M100022</guid>
      <dc:creator>Christopher Caldwell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T21:14:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877439#M100023</link>
      <description>I'll tell you this.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The Ignite error is a mystery.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The check_patches thing, we had a problem with that and had to punch in a patch.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;q4, there was a crash pach, so we put that in too.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I guess I'm going to have to live with this, but however pulled my support case is currently stumped.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One thing I won't tolerate is check_patches errors. Any patch that shows up bad on that is history. I think thats how I learned about the swverify command as a matter of fact.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Steve</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:28:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877439#M100023</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T21:28:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877440#M100024</link>
      <description>[1593#] check_patches&lt;BR /&gt;Obtaining information on installed patches&lt;BR /&gt;Checking installed version of /usr/sbin/swconfig&lt;BR /&gt;Checking for invalid patches&lt;BR /&gt;Checking object module checksums for active patch fileset   457 of   457&lt;BR /&gt;Checking patch filesets for active patch   225 of   225&lt;BR /&gt;Checking state for patch fileset   738 of   738&lt;BR /&gt;Checking patch_state for patch fileset   738 of   738&lt;BR /&gt;Running swverify on all patch filesets, this may take several minutes&lt;BR /&gt;RESULT: No problems found, review /tmp/check_patches.report for details.&lt;BR /&gt;tzfat:/root&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;hmmm....&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Very interesting professor.  Very interesting....</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:33:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877440#M100024</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T21:33:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877441#M100025</link>
      <description>The mtime error should never pose a problem....but the size errors can be a little more scary.  Are you able to create a good kernel?  I had a similar problem and it took 5 months(no joke), of working with the the crisis mgt. team, to get all of the swverify errors cleaned up.  I get a nearly clean swverify with the exception of a few patches that had errors due to the packaging.  Good luck!</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:08:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877441#M100025</guid>
      <dc:creator>Matt Williamson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T22:08:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: swverify issues. How serious?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877442#M100026</link>
      <description>Yeah, we can do a new kernel.  Most of the checksum errors involve utilities that HP hosed with patches.  q4 check_patches for example.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I just generated a new one to be safe, on your suggestion and appreciate it.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:36:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/swverify-issues-how-serious/m-p/2877442#M100026</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-01-08T22:36:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

