From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: no logging of successful events? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:51:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1219089102.15566.120.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1219086574.6522.8.camel@orpheus.clinicomp.com> <200808181518.34373.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1219087523.15566.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1219088976.6522.29.camel@orpheus.clinicomp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1219088976.6522.29.camel@orpheus.clinicomp.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: Brian LaMere Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 12:49 -0700, Brian LaMere wrote: > was using a slightly older manpage, which doesn't include that helpful > clarification :) > > Brian > > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:25 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:18 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Monday 18 August 2008 15:09:34 Brian LaMere wrote: > > > > So...why is it that "LIST_RULES: exit,always success!=0 syscall=open" > > > > doesn't disregard the successful calls? > > > > > > Because that means log the successful calls. If you only want the unsuccessful > > > calls, I'd suggest success = 0. Its easy to confuse the success field with > > > exits codes which return 0 for success. This question pops up every now and > > > again. :) > > > > Isn't that why man auditctl talks about success=no and success=yes? So you don't have to remember? Actually sgrubb tells me that the =yes and =no is actually bug in the man page :( You should add it to auditctl steve :) -Eric