check_second_connection stopping my recovery?
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
It appears to me as though the new connection code in auditd-listen.c
is stopping my recovery actions.
My aggregator is getting a constant stream of:
op=dup addr=192.168.10.10:43546 port=43546 res=no
I was going back through the events on disk, scooping them up and
sending them to the aggregation machine as Steve suggested a long
while back (using an ausearch then piping the results to
audisp-remote).
So it appears to me that this is now prohibited. Was this intentional?
Thx,
LCB.
--
LC (Lenny) Bruzenak
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 06:01:10 pm LC Bruzenak wrote:
It appears to me as though the new connection code in
auditd-listen.c
is stopping my recovery actions.
<snip>
So it appears to me that this is now prohibited. Was this
intentional?
Yes, it was. With the reconnect code its possible to DoS a server, so the
connections need to be limited. I think the best solution is to make an admin
tweakable setting that defaults to 1 and you can set it to 2. Your recovery
technique won't be needed in the long term since its planned to have a store-
and-forward model so nothing is lost and its automatically recovered on start
up.
-Steve
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 13:10 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 06:01:10 pm LC Bruzenak wrote:
Yes, it was. With the reconnect code its possible to DoS a server, so the
connections need to be limited. I think the best solution is to make an admin
tweakable setting that defaults to 1 and you can set it to 2. Your recovery
technique won't be needed in the long term since its planned to have a store-
and-forward model so nothing is lost and its automatically recovered on start
up.
-Steve
Steve,
Your call but it may not be worth adding a new setting.
I've already patched it out of my system, and if I'm the only one who
cares then I'd say don't worry about it. I am aware of a DoS attack but
all senders are locked tight so I feel mitigation is sufficient. In fact
I nearly DoS-attacked myself before restricting the recovery to at most
1 process. :)
The store-and-forward piece will be excellent. It will solve at least a
couple of issues for me: recovery and also forwarding from a DMZ machine
to an internal server which will then forward to an independent
collector.
Thx,
LCB.
--
LC (Lenny) Bruzenak
lenny(a)magitekltd.com
5499
days inactive
5512
days old
linux-audit@lists.linux-audit.osci.io
2 comments
2 participants
tags (0)
participants (2)
-
LC Bruzenak -
Steve Grubb