Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:16:22 +0300 (EET DST) From: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua> To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do we *really* need logger(1)? Message-ID: <199509101116.OAA03773@office.elvisti.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <199509081538.IAA02968@precipice.shockwave.com> from "Paul Traina" at Sep 8, 95 08:38:10 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear Paul,
# Comments?
#
# no, no, No, NO.....NO!!!!!!!!!
#
# Don't duplicate effort with half-assed schemes that make local assumptions.
#
# Don't confuse authentication with authorization.
^^^^^^^
intermix, better to say?
# There are already kerberos patches available for syslogd to do the
# right thing.
Agreed, 100 hundred times agreed. This is The Best Solution (tm)
because of many issues, like interoperability, design, etc...
But: where is FreeBSD Kerberos port for us to use, for example,
in Europe?
The second. Does the kerberized version of syslog support
any kind of fault-tolerant message delivery? (I don't know much
about Kerberos stuff :( )
And we need a facility to do cross-host
logging _today_, and for sensitive information, too.
Please, I'll be very grateful if someone will give me a
pointer to some ready-to-use solution. My own desire to
rewrite syslogd+syslog() (means: to invent another incompatible
bicycle with square wheels :) from scratch is not too strong.
--
With best regards -- Andrew Stesin.
+380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509101116.OAA03773>