RE: State of Audit Proposal ?

From: KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1) (steven_kramerat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 08:11:07 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "[PATCH] ip networking hooks (v.2)"

    > * frm crispinat_private "07/24/01 23:37:30 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    > *
    > * weird. If the system is so critical, then why is IDS 
    > configured to only
    > * bitch about MAC violations? If it is because alarming at 
    > DAC violations
    > * is too noisy, then why do so many people do so much work on 
    > a system that
    > * is so critical?  It just doesn't make sense.
    
    Sometimes the DAC violations are noisy, and not directly
    due to the overt acts of the people on
    the machine.  There have been apps that are coded in such a way as to
    cause many, many DAC audit entries.  One shell comes to mind that on
    each command-line interpretation, caused many DAC violations in its
    search.   It's not reasonable to change all the apps on a system just
    to make your audit trail smaller.  Having such an app doesn't make
    the machine less useful or trustworthy, but it does impact on
    the manner in which DAC rules are filtered.
    
    --steve kramer
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 25 2001 - 08:12:31 PDT