From: Randy Zagar <zagar@arlut.utexas.edu>
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: RE: close(2) not being audited? (Wieprecht, Karen M.)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:59:27 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45BE521F.9040806@arlut.utexas.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070127170020.81DEA733B3@hormel.redhat.com>
Actually, this statement was amended in a later Industrial Security
Letter...
The comments from the ISL have been incorporated into our NISPOM docs
and include the following:
8.602. Audit Capability
(c) Successful and unsuccessful accesses to security-relevant
objects and directories, including creation, open, close,
modification, and deletion.
55. Question: Paragraph 8-602a(1)(c) can generate upwards to 100
audit entries for each successful access to security-relevant
objects and/or directories. From a security standpoint, is this
information of enough importance to generate voluminous amounts of
auditing data?
Answer: No. Only unsuccessful accesses need to be audited.
Now I can easily imagine that Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPPA may require
auditing successful accesses to SROs, but the NISPOM no longer requires
it...
-Randy Zagar
linux-audit-request@redhat.com wrote:
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:14:10 -0500
>
>From: "Wieprecht, Karen M." <Karen.Wieprecht@jhuapl.edu>
>Subject: RE: close(2) not being audited?
>To: "Steve Grubb" <sgrubb@redhat.com>, <linux-audit@redhat.com>
>Cc: "Todd, Charles" <CTODD@ball.com>
>Message-ID:
> <FC11D747323EB24493CDC753367EEB92019FA4D3@aplesnation.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Actually, the exact wording says:
>
>"Successful and unsuccessful accesses to security-relevant objects and
>directories"
>
>It does not specify exactly how that should be collected, but the
>NISPOM does request that the audit record include who tried to access
>it, what they tried to access, the time and date of the access attempt,
>what command they were trying to run (rm, chmod, etc.), and if they
>were successful or not. What happens behind the scenes after the
>operating system takes over the request may not be of as much interest
>unless collecting that info helps to provide the above details to the
>audit record.
>
>-Karen Wieprecht
>
>
--
Randy Zagar Sr. Unix Systems Administrator
E-mail: zagar@arlut.utexas.edu Applied Research Laboratories
Phone: 512 835-3131 Univ. of Texas at Austin
parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-29 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20070127170020.81DEA733B3@hormel.redhat.com>]
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=45BE521F.9040806@arlut.utexas.edu \
--to=zagar@arlut.utexas.edu \
--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