From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Correct audit field for a netmask?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:10:55 -0500
Message-ID: <200711161110.56596.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <200711151612.53432.paul.moore@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <200711151612.53432.paul.moore@hp.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Thursday 15 November 2007 16:12:53 Paul Moore wrote:
> I was wondering what was the correct way to send a netmask in an audit
> message?

That is a curious one. I don't think we've ever recorded a netmask since =
we=20
don't audit the routing tables. How does this net mask get used in a way =
that=20
needs to be audited. Just curious. :)

> Or is there some other field specifically for the netmask?
>
> =A0addr=3D10.0.0.0 X=3D8

This would probably be better so that extra parsing of the value is not=20
needed. I'd suggest something short like "net" to save diskspace.

-Steve