From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: LC Bruzenak Subject: Re: audit rule question Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:56:37 -0500 Message-ID: <1210179397.6586.44.camel@homeserver> References: <1210176961.6586.26.camel@homeserver> <200805071244.02163.sgrubb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m47Gv4kl024640 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 12:57:04 -0400 Received: from magi (rrcs-24-242-137-197.sw.biz.rr.com [24.242.137.197]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m47Guq3v026282 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 12:56:53 -0400 Received: from [24.242.137.194] (helo=[192.168.30.40]) by magi with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JtmwE-0005QK-34 for linux-audit@redhat.com; Wed, 07 May 2008 11:56:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200805071244.02163.sgrubb@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Linux Audit List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 12:44 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Wednesday 07 May 2008 12:16:01 LC Bruzenak wrote: > > Am I misunderstanding this option, or is there a manpage or code error? > > audit-1.7.2-6.fc9.x86_64 > > I'd say we need to fix the man page. OK. Should I open a bz? And also along these lines, manpage says: -a list,action but the supplied /usr/share/doc/audit-1.7.2/stig.rules file has, in a few places: stig.rules:-a always,exit which I believe is backwards. The other supplied example rules (capp, lspp, nispom) appear to be in the correct order. I am a little surprised that the "-a always,exit" doesn't cause an error. I wonder if it works correctly - maybe auditctl code is smart enough to overcome syntactic dyslexia? :) LCB. -- LC (Lenny) Bruzenak lenny@magitekltd.com