RE: [logs] RE: syslog/tcp (selp)

andrewat_private

The more I think about it, the idea of binary data and non ASCII chr
sets should be left for the BEEP or syslog reliable implementations. The
SELP protocol should be a very simple change and not allow for non ASCII
chrs or binary. Therefore we can just stick with a delimiter and not
worry about a length chunk. It also means I don't have to code for non
ASCII chr sets just yet :-)

On the topic of delimiters. We discovered today that the PIX actually
sends a single LF at the end of its messages. It does this for both UDP
and TCP messages. I'm using version 6.2(1) of the PIX IOS. From memory,
earlier versions of the IOS didn't delimit the data. (Version 4 and 5).
Does anyone have access to old software to confirm this?

We have been discussing the delimiter recently as being CRLF. Can I
throw the cat amongst the pigeons and suggest we make it just LF? LF is
the Unix standard delimiter for files and streams. CRLF is more of a
Windows convention.

Would it not be easier (and more code efficient) to search for just LF?

Someone mentioned that CRLF is the Internet standard, can someone point
me to a URL that defines this? I always thought the Internet was more
Unix driven than Windows.

Cheers

Andrew

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:35:42 +1300, "Andrew Ross" wrote:
> As another idea, if we started the message with a known header
preamble,
> it would make it instantly recognisable as particular protocol.
> 
> SELP 0000 <PRI> HOSTADDRESS MESSAGE.

Unfortunately a classical syslog daemon won't like it.  It'll assume the
default facility and priority for that message--"user" and "notice"--and
proceed to put it wherever such messages go instead of where this
message
should go.

In a way this isn't really a problem, because a new syslog daemon has to
be
changed to use TCP and to send CRLFs at the end of messages; but in
another
sense it is, because we're trying to make it easy for implementors to
convert
their old syslog daemons to this protocol, and the more requirements we
impose
on them, the more reluctant they'll be.  If this is to get any
acceptance
outside of the loganalysis list, then we have to make it *very* *very*
*very*
easy to implement.

TCP and CRLFs are the minimum to have a working protocol.  I think we
should
punt on the other issues, discuss them in "Security Concerns", and
recommend
syslog-reliable for serious work.

-- 
Kyle R. Hofmann <krhat_private>

_______________________________________________
LogAnalysis mailing list
LogAnalysisat_private
http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis