Thanks sweet, thanks again guys. Amazing work.

I would still love to see a roadmap posted just to see what cool new stuff is 
getting worked on. Just tossing that out there :)

-Tim Eberhard

On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Daniel Cid <[email protected]> wrote:

> It is a new feature added on v2.5, so not available during the write
> of the book.
> 
> Just add report_changes="yes" to add monitored directory and you will get
> the "diff" between versions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Tim Eberhard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wow, very nice. I'm amazed I haven't seen that feature before. I read the 
>> sygress book and it made no mention of that feature.
>> 
>> Excellent stuff, I greatly appreciate the response. I'll check it out read 
>> up. Sorry to add white noise to the list.
>> 
>> -Tim Eberhard
>> 
>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Oops, I meant the report_changes option in syscheck, check_diff is 
>>> different.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Eberhard
>>> Sent:  10/09/2010 12:15:51 PM
>>> Subject:  [ossec-list] dev roadmap?
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I hate to ask such a basic question but after browsing/googling I have been
>>> unable to find any kind of documented roadmap for OSSEC.
>>> 
>>> Of course I had a few specific features in mind that I wanted to see if were
>>> on the roadmap.
>>> 
>>> I searched the archive and I've found a few of them have been asked in the
>>> past. The primary feature I'm looking for is the central repo/diff
>>> capability for configuration files built into ossec. When evaluating OSSEC
>>> vs some commercial alternatives some of the short comings we found were
>>> mainly around the ability to track/alert on not only signature changes to
>>> files but evaluate the configuration file and answer the commonly asked
>>> question "great the md5 signature changed.. but WHAT changed?"
>>> 
>>> I know you can hack something up with some active response combo with a
>>> change repo but that really isn't a decent solution that integrates with
>>> OSSEC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your help, sorry if I missed the obvious.
>>> -Tim Eberhard
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to