Re: [logs] SDSC Secure Syslog

From: Darren Reed (avalonat_private)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 01:22:48 PST

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [logs] why log transport is still important"

    In some mail from Rainer Gerhards, sie said:
    > 
    > > but how do you impose a limit on the message size? limit it 
    > > to 1024 chars?
    > > 
    > 
    > ...
    > 
    > > messages are limited in size, this limit is tunable at runtime.
    > > (log_msg_size() global option) you can have 8192 bytes length 
    > > messages if you like that.
    > > 
    > > the 1024 bytes limit was something again that needed to be eliminated.
    > 
    > While dealing with (phony) Windows event log records.... Even 8 K is not
    > enough from our point of view. Specifically if you think about Asian
    > languages. If you look at e.g. Japanese (Windows) event message, thy are
    > more or less double the size for many events. Same if ever Unicode
    > (especially UTF-4) is to be transmited. Sure not there yet, but wouldn't
    > it be good to think about it.
    > 
    > I opt for the sender not to be limited in size or at least be able to
    > negotiate with the server on a max size. Believe it or not, we have
    > customers who ask for the full binary data from NT event logs to be
    > transmitted - that can make up to 128 KB... :( Obviously, there is a
    > need for such...
    
    You're mixing two different mechanisms here.  The "event manager" logs
    are used in a different way than is syslog but I suppose the question is,
    should syslog support that type of use anyway?  And if so, how?  The
    mechanism currently used is not sufficient, I think.
    
    Darren
    _______________________________________________
    LogAnalysis mailing list
    LogAnalysisat_private
    http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 10:25:09 PST