From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [RFC] programmatic IDS routing Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:28:55 -0400 Message-ID: <200803191528.55805.sgrubb@redhat.com> References: <200803191302.48434.sgrubb@redhat.com> <200803191440.02743.sgrubb@redhat.com> <47E163D9.4050502@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47E163D9.4050502@hp.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Linda Knippers Cc: Linux Audit , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:04:57 Linda Knippers wrote: > I'm not sure why all of the above apply. Because this IDS is part of the audit system. > If an IDS has a dependency on audit and specific audit rules to get the > information it needs, it can use the information in its config file to > construct the audit rules it needs. Then you surely have duplicate rules controlled by 2 systems. The first rule in the audit.rules file is -D which would delete not only the audit event rules for archival purposes, but any IDS placed rules. There is not a simple way of deleting the rules placed by auditctl vs the ones placed by the IDS. The IDS system would also need to be prodded to reload its set of rules again. > I don't think an IDS config file needs to be any more complicated than an > audit rules, and in fact should be simpler. I think it would be more complicated going down this path for a number of reasons. -Steve