public inbox for linux-audit@redhat.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
Subject: Near Term Audit Road Map
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:33:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200902271033.21486.sgrubb@redhat.com> (raw)

Hi,

With the proposals sent to the list, I wanted to talk about how this might 
play out code-wise. With regard to the current code base, I am working on a 
1.8 release. This would represent finishing the remote logging app and 
nothing more. The 1.8 series would become just an update series just like the 
1.0.x series did.

In parallel with finishing remote logging, I would release a 2.0 version. 
Patches applied to 1.8 would also be applied to 2.0. A 2.1 release would 
signify the completion of remote logging that branch. I would recommend this 
branch for all distributions pulling new code in. 

The 2.0 branch will also have a couple more changes. I want to split up the 
audit source code a little bit. I want to drop the system-config-audit code 
and let it become standalone package updated and distributed separately. 

I also want to drop all audispd-plugins in the 2.0 branch and have them 
released separately. They cause unnecessary build dependencies for the audit 
package.

During the work for a 2.2 release, I would also like to pull the audispd 
program inside auditd. In the past, I tried to keep auditd lean and single 
purpose, but with adding remote logging and kerberos support, we already have 
something that is hard to analyze. So, to improve performance and decrease 
system load, the audit daemon will also do event dispatching.

Would this proposal impact anyone in a Bad Way?

Thanks,
-Steve

             reply	other threads:[~2009-02-27 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-27 15:33 Steve Grubb [this message]
2009-02-27 16:13 ` Near Term Audit Road Map LC Bruzenak
2009-02-27 16:23   ` LC Bruzenak
2009-02-27 16:56   ` Steve Grubb
2009-03-24 16:29     ` audisp-remote and audisp-prelude question LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 16:41       ` Steve Grubb
2009-03-24 16:55       ` Sebastien Tricaud
2009-03-24 17:30         ` LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 17:06       ` Steve Grubb
2009-03-24 18:01         ` LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 18:13           ` Steve Grubb
2009-02-27 20:59 ` Near Term Audit Road Map Matthew Booth

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=200902271033.21486.sgrubb@redhat.com \
    --to=sgrubb@redhat.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