From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 30 04:50:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238D1551 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:50:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@penx.com) Received: from btw.pki2.com (btw.pki2.com [IPv6:2001:470:a:6fd::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE4F3237A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by btw.pki2.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7U4o9vx079117; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:50:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@penx.com) Subject: Re: Tools to analyze syslog logs From: Dennis Glatting To: Olivier Nicole In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:50:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1377838209.79276.61.camel@btw.pki2.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-yoursite-MailScanner-Information: Dennis Glatting X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: r7U4o9vx079117 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: freebsd@penx.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:50:27 -0000 On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 11:33 +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote: > Hello, > > What tool do you use to analyze syslog logs? > > All tools I can see in the ports seems to rely heavily on some big > configuration file, that had tons of regexp to filter the event messages. > > I am wondering if some tool exists that would try to make a > classification of the event messages; that one could use to say "this > type of message" is close to "that type of message" hence thy should be > treated the same way, etc. > Something similar was recently discussed on NANOG: http://seclists.org/nanog/2013/Aug/530