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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox