RE: [logs] SDSC Secure Syslog

From: Marcus J. Ranum (mjrat_private)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 12:54:38 PST

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [logs] SDSC Secure Syslog"

    Rainer Gerhards wrote:
    >I agree it would be great to have a structured format (and I opt
    >nowadays for XML simply because everyone thinks it is easy ;)). But
    >there are some basic weaknesses in current syslog. For example, think on
    >using it in an occasionally connected network (e.g. radio connected
    >moving systems) - clearly there is need for some reliability in the
    >transport...
    
    Yes, Syslog UDP is incredibly unreliable. I posted some stuff
    in here about that last year... See:
    http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/loganalysis/2002-January/000412.html
    The relevant quote would be:
    > Some initial results: on an OpenBSD machine with 800Mhz CPU
    >and a bunch of memory syslogging one million records in a while loop 
    >using the default UNIX domain socket results in a log file containing
    >468677 records - 46% or close to 1/2 the number sent.  Drop-outs occurred
    >pretty much immediately:
    >Jan 29 16:03:19 hussar hammer[17461]: 138
    >Jan 29 16:03:19 hussar hammer[17461]: 139
    >Jan 29 16:03:19 hussar hammer[17461]: 1896
    >Jan 29 16:03:19 hussar hammer[17461]: 1897
    >
    >140 records into the session I lost 1700 or so messages. Perhaps this is
    >some kind of undocumented "compression" technique?   ;-)
    
    So I'm not saying that the guys who are working on better
    syslog servers and server-to-server implementations are
    barking up the wrong tree. The current syslog implementation
    is crap that needs to be replaced. But so does the client
    side...
    
    With respect to XML and tokenizing, see:
    http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/loganalysis/2002-August/001089.html
    and
    http://www.ranum.com/logging/logging-data-map.html
    
    I'm not going to jump back on the whole XML issue other
    than to make my standard observation that markup is
    easy, semantics are hard, and XML is just markup. ;)
    
    >Sounds interesting - where to find? Who participated? Widely known? I'd
    >at least give it some more try.
    
    I'm somewhat hampered by a strong skepticism in the worth
    of standards committees and the standards process. :) Which
    makes me have a lot of trouble getting excited about
    wasting time with standards bodies. Basically, someone needs
    to just bite the bullet and "do it" which is highly problematic
    since it involves a huge amount of app-rewriting and the value
    only comes if EVERYONE does it. :(  :(  :(
    
    mjr.
    
    ---
    Marcus J. Ranum				http://www.ranum.com
    Computer and Communications Security	mjrat_private
    
    _______________________________________________
    LogAnalysis mailing list
    LogAnalysisat_private
    http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 13:54:55 PST