From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael C Thompson Subject: Re: auditctl usage for filter lists: "user" , "watch" and "exclude" Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:58:23 -0500 Message-ID: <446C999F.2010306@us.ibm.com> References: <446C8915.20606@us.ibm.com> <446C8BCC.1020002@us.ibm.com> <200605181155.15157.sgrubb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200605181155.15157.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: Steve Grubb Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com Steve Grubb wrote: > On Thursday 18 May 2006 10:59, Michael C Thompson wrote: >> Question, is it intended for: >> auditctl -a exclude,always -F msgtype=CONFIG_CHANGE >> and >> auditctl -a exclude,never -F msgtype=CONFIG_CHANGE >> >> (being active at different times) to both block the CONFIG_CHANGE >> messages? I would assume that exclude,never to _not_ block messages of >> that type? > > I can't see a reason to have both for the same msgtype. The first rule to > match "wins" though, so the second rule would not apply. True, but I didn't mean for you to interpret them as being active together. Example: auditctl -a exclude,always -F msgtype=CONFIG_CHANGE auditctl -a entry,always -S chmod -- no message logged auditctl -D auditctl -a exclude,never -F msgtype=CONFIG_CHANGE auditctl -a entry,always -S chmod -- no message logged The 2nd no message logged doesn't make sense to me, as the exclude,never is in fact causing the messages to not get logged. Mike