Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:44:35 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Wesley Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some "security" questions. Message-ID: <20030211234435.GA31050@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200302111532.28994.wes@softweyr.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302101752500.49102-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <xzp65rrmemi.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200302111532.28994.wes@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:32:28PM -0800, Wesley Peters wrote: > On Monday 10 February 2003 23:59, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> writes: > > > 1/ Command logging. We're thinking that a hacked version of the shell > > > that logs commands may do what they want, but personally I > > > think that if you are going to log things then you really want to > > > PROPERLY do it, and log the EXEC commands along with the arguments. > > > (sadmin et al. doesn't give arguments, and neither does ktrace) > > > > "Yes, we can do that" in the sense that it can be implemented if > > there's a demand for it, but I don't think any existing code can do > > it. > > Did we somehow break acct(2), or is that somehow inadequate to the task? It > should be ideal for what Julian's customer wants, I would think. See also > acct(5), sa(8) and accton(8). acct(2) does not log the arguments to commands, just the commandnames. Since the arguments were specifically mentioned above acct(2) seems to be inadequate. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030211234435.GA31050>