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

jorgenat_private

To All in this thread,

I have been folowing this thread for a couple og days, i agree that we
have to have an extended form of logging.

I have been working with the PIX Firewall for the last 5 years and had
some old logs. I found some logs for the PIX version 4.4 and for the 5.2
and all of the log has a LF in the end.

There have been made some new enhancements for the logging function in
the pix.

The newer versions of the Cisco PIX Software 6.2.2 (115) and UP, the
next release will be 6.3 in March 2003.

The enhancement is an Device-id for logging purpose, like the one for
the new syslog format. It will add the
hostname or ip address or a text string between the PRI and the Message
fields when not using the timestamp or between the timestamp and the
Message when using the timestamp.

Old style

pri time message   <165>Jan 11 2003 00:59:52 %PIX-5-111008: User
'Enable.......

New style

pri time name message   <165>Jan 11 2003 00:59:52 name : %PIX-5-111008:
User 'Enable.......

Regards 

Jorgen Hoffmeister

Future Graphics
E-Mail .: jhat_private

-----Original Message-----
From: loganalysis-adminat_private
[mailto:loganalysis-adminat_private] On Behalf Of Smith, John
Sent: 10. januar 2003 21:06
To: loganalysisat_private
Cc: 'Andrew Ross'
Subject: RE: [logs] RE: syslog/tcp (selp) 

All, 

        Greetings. 

        Got access to a version 5 PIX and it does place a single LF at
the end of the message, at least on a UDP packet.

        End of a syslog packet (using Snort): 

        2F 32 34 35 36 38 0A      /24568. 

jcs 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Andrew Ross [mailto:andrewat_private] 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:42 AM 
To: 'Kyle R. Hofmann' 
Cc: 'Rainer Gerhards'; 'Balazs Scheidler'; loganalysisat_private;
'Mikael Olsson'; avalonat_private 
Subject: RE: [logs] RE: syslog/tcp (selp) 

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 

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