On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:25:19 AM EDT Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > Hello, > > > On 19 Jul 2016, at 12:28, Mateusz Piotrowski <[email protected]> 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 Is it because my auditd is outdated?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 > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
