On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:25:19 AM EDT Mateusz Piotrowski wrote:
Hello,
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 12:28, Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> type=CONFIG_CHANGE msg=audit(1464013671.541:406): auid=1000 ses=7 op="add
> rule" key=(null) list=4 res=1 As you can see, there is a res field which
> value is 1.
>
> Is it because my auditd is outdated? Is there a missing res field which is
> purely numeric (just like the fields called fp [3])?
No. There is inconsistency because different people do it their way without
regard for anyone who is trying to make sense of the audit trail. This is why
I have published so many specifications. I want to point to the docs and say
you have to conform. And this is also why I want to write a validation suite.
We need to find all the outliers and fix them.
-Steve
> As Steve said in previous emails, it is possible and it might be
fixed
> already. I’ll try to find out if I get similar logs with the latest
> auditd (2.6.5) on CentOS 6.8-i386 later.
I confirm that it is possible to generate a type=CONFIG_CHANGE record with a
res=1 field on CentOS 6.8 with auditd v2.6.5.
Cheers
-m
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit