From: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
To: LC Bruzenak <lenny@magitekltd.com>
Cc: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: audit 1.7.4 released
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:59:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1211903940.3079.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211903431.6568.41.camel@homeserver>
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:50 -0500, LC Bruzenak wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I am testing 1.7.4 (with mls permissive policy):
> audit-viewer-0.2-2.fc9.x86_64
> audit-libs-python-1.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64
> system-config-audit-0.4.7-1.fc9.x86_64
> audit-1.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64
> audit-libs-devel-1.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64
> audit-debuginfo-1.7.3-1.fc9.x86_64
> audit-libs-1.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64
> audit-libs-1.7.4-1.fc9.i386
>
> I moved all the old audit out of the way, so all records would be new,
> and see this after reboot:
>
> [root@hugo ~]# aureport -h -i --summary
>
> Host Summary Report
> ===========================
> total host
> ===========================
> 223 ?
> 12 homeserver
> 8 127.0.0.1
> 6 0.0.0.0
>
> The "?" entries are application audits - I am going to look, maybe they
> have an error on the way we are sending those in.
>
> The ones I don't understand are the "0.0.0.0" entries. Here is an
> example of one of those:
>
> [root@hugo ~]# ausearch -hn 0.0.0.0 -i --just-one
> ----
> type=SOCKADDR msg=audit(05/27/2008 10:30:22.163:13193) : saddr=inet
> host:0.0.0.0 serv:711
> type=SYSCALL msg=audit(05/27/2008 10:30:22.163:13193) : arch=x86_64
> syscall=bind success=yes exit=0 a0=5 a1=7fff63dbb220 a2=10 a3=89ea70
> items=0 ppid=1 pid=2647 auid=unset uid=root gid=root euid=root suid=root
> fsuid=root egid=root sgid=root fsgid=root tty=(none) ses=4294967295
> comm=rpc.rquotad exe=/usr/sbin/rpc.rquotad
> subj=system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023 key=(null)
> type=AVC msg=audit(05/27/2008 10:30:22.163:13193) : avc: denied
> { name_bind } for pid=2647 comm=rpc.rquotad src=711
> scontext=system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:hi_reserved_port_t:s0 tclass=udp_socket
>
> Is the host "0.0.0.0" field here a bug?
Isn't this telling up that they are calling bind on any interface not a
specific address?
the const struct sockaddr *addr part of the bind(2) call is IN_ADDRANY
what whatever the semantics are...
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-27 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-19 18:50 audit 1.7.4 released Steve Grubb
2008-05-27 15:50 ` LC Bruzenak
2008-05-27 15:59 ` Eric Paris [this message]
2008-05-27 16:09 ` LC Bruzenak
2008-05-27 16:10 ` Steve Grubb
2008-05-27 16:16 ` LC Bruzenak
2008-05-27 16:25 ` Steve Grubb
2008-05-27 17:20 ` LC Bruzenak
2008-05-27 16:57 ` Klaus Heinrich Kiwi
2008-05-27 17:15 ` Steve Grubb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1211903940.3079.16.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=lenny@magitekltd.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.