Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:19:00 -0600 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: n j <nino80@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Somewhat OT: Is Full Command Logging Possible? Message-ID: <50C0EFA4.3010902@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <CALf6cgb0%2BGXrtTymOPOmjV_C2sk7EaGK=qJOF2z4mB3pQkzV_g@mail.gmail.com> References: <50BFD674.8000305@tundraware.com> <8BFA2629-45CA-491B-9BA8-E8AC78A4D66E@my.gd> <50BFDCFD.4010108@tundraware.com> <CALf6cgb0%2BGXrtTymOPOmjV_C2sk7EaGK=qJOF2z4mB3pQkzV_g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/06/2012 12:55 PM, n j wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote: >> ... >> Well ... does auditd provide a record of every command issued within a >> script? >> I was under the impression (and I may well be wrong) that it noted only >> the name of the script being executed. > > Even if you configured auditd to record every command issued within a > script, you'd still have a problem if a malicious user put the same > commands inside a binary. > > As some people already pointed out, there is practically no way to > control users once you give them root privileges. I understand this. Even the organization in question understands this. They are not trying to *prevent* any kind of access. All they're trying to do *log* it. Why? To meet some obscure compliance requirement they have to adhere to in order to remain in business. <rant> I know all of this is silly but that's our future when you let Our Fine Government regulate pretty much anything. </rant> > > The only thing that would really solve your problem is probably > something like http://www.balabit.com/network-security/scb/features > (no personal experience with it, but seems it does what you need). > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50C0EFA4.3010902>