question about displayed version of package

Issues related to software problems.
Post Reply
ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/17 17:41:24

On CentOS 5.4, I upgraded ProFTPd v1.3.1 to v1.3.3g. The upgrade process pulled in some dependencies and succeeded. I renamed the new binary and conf files and modified the config accordingly, then restarted ProFTPd. ProFTPd seems to work fine and the installed packages list now includes the following item:

Code: Select all

proftpd.i386                                   1.3.3g-4.el5                                        installed
My question is, why does the proftpd --version command still return this:

Code: Select all

 - ProFTPD Version 1.3.1
Thanks in advance

gerald_clark
Posts: 10642
Joined: 2005/08/05 15:19:54
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by gerald_clark » 2015/11/17 21:32:46

1. The current version is 5.11, not 5.4. You REALLY need to update.
you have years if exploits unplugged.

2. CentOS does not provide proftpd. It looks like you are trying to use the package form epel.
You should not be renaming any binaries or config files, so I don't know what your problem is.

ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/18 03:35:15

Yes, I know it's not wise to be so far behind in releases because of ever-accruing vulnerabilities. As for the files, I used yum update proftpd and it installed the package relatively smoothly, with one exception. It threw a warning at the end telling me that the new /etc/pam.d/proftpd file had been named /etc/pam.d/proftpd.rpmnew and that the new /etc/proftpd.conf file had been named /etc/proftpd.conf.rpmnew. I just removed the .rpmnew extensions and adjusted the conf file directives for my environment. It seems to be working well.

ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/19 17:41:01

So no ideas at all why "- ProFTPD Version 1.3.1" is still returned for a version check?

gerald_clark
Posts: 10642
Joined: 2005/08/05 15:19:54
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by gerald_clark » 2015/11/19 17:47:34

You said you renamed the new binary.
What did you rename, and what did you rename it to?

Show the output of 'rpm -qa \*ftp\*'

ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/20 03:07:23

I apologize for being unclear in my OP. I renamed the binary (/usr/sbin/proftpd to /usr/sbin/proftpd.tmp) because the date stamp on it appeared to be unchanged from the previous one after the update, and I thought the file should have been replaced during the update process. I wanted to see if doing so would brake ProFTPd so I could determine if it was using that binary file at that particular location, or whether the new binary was perhaps placed at a different path in the directory system. Not a very good way to test for this, I'll admit. ProFTPd no longer worked until I removed the .tmp extension from the proftpd file. So no, I didn't leave the file in a way that broke anything.

The output of rpm -qa \*ftp\* is as follows:

lftp-3.7.11-4.el5
ftp-0.17-35.el5
proftpd-1.3.3g-4.el5
vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_4.1

gerald_clark
Posts: 10642
Joined: 2005/08/05 15:19:54
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by gerald_clark » 2015/11/20 03:15:26

Run "rpm -V proftpd-1.3.3g-4.el5" and see if any files are not correct.

Then run "which proftpd" to see if the correct binary is being found.

ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/20 03:48:19

rpm -V proftpd-1.3.3g-4.el5 returns:

Code: Select all

S.5....T  c /etc/ftpusers
S.5....T  c /etc/proftpd.conf
and which proftpd returns:

Code: Select all

/usr/local/sbin/proftpd
So a different binary path.

gerald_clark
Posts: 10642
Joined: 2005/08/05 15:19:54
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by gerald_clark » 2015/11/20 12:43:17

CentOS doesn't install programs in ./usr./local/
It looks like remnants of self compiled programs.

ZXH
Posts: 8
Joined: 2015/11/17 17:26:02

Re: question about displayed version of package

Post by ZXH » 2015/11/20 13:59:05

That's certainly a possibility. Could the presence of this binary file in the ./usr./local/ directory be why yum list installed still returns v1.3.1 of ProFTPd? I'm assuming that I can safely delete the file. I'll probably just rename it first to see if it fixes the issue. Thanks

Post Reply