Try putting this into your agent.conf file on the ossec server for
your Windows machine(s). Its a good test if you do it against a
machine with many ports open. Perhaps you could setup a Windows DC to
test with?
<localfile>
<log_format>full_command</log_format>
<command>netstat -anp tcp | find "LISTEN" | find /V "127.0.0.1"</
command>
</localfile>
Use this rule in your local_rules.xml:
<rule id="140001" level="7">
<if_sid>530</if_sid>
<regex>ossec: output:\.*netstat -an</regex>
<check_diff />
<description>Listened ports have changed.</description>
</rule>
For internal-options.conf, I have the following maild options set:
maild.strict_checking=1
maild.groupping=0
maild.full_subject=1
Thank you.
On Dec 22 2011, 5:49 am, "dan (ddp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:59 AM, alsdks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
>
> > So it seems that the output is chopped off before it gets to the
> > manager .The limitation on ossec agent ?
>
> > Thank you
>
> There are conflicting reports on this, so it's up to me to test it.
> When I find time and interest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 11:34 pm, BP9906 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ah yes, I see what you're talking about now, but I can see from the
> >> alerts.log file that it does contain the whole output current and
> >> previous. Seems like email isnt getting the whole thing in the body.
>
> >> On Dec 20, 11:09 am, "dan (ddp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:57 PM, BP9906 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > So what does logall do? How does that relate to the email getting
> >> > > chopped off?
>
> >> > The idea was to see if the output is chopped off before it gets to the
> >> > manager or after.
>
> >> >http://www.ossec.net/doc/syntax/head_ossec_config.global.html#element...
>
> >> > > On Dec 20, 9:01 am, "dan (ddp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:52 AM, BP9906 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> > The alerts.log contains both the output and previous output. The
> >> > >> > email
> >> > >> > does not.
>
> >> > >> > Whats the log_all option you refer to? I couldnt find any reference
> >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > it online.
>
> >> > >> I meant logall. I apparently get those mixed up.
>
> >> > >> > On Dec 19, 4:36 pm, "dan (ddp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:46 PM, BP9906 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> >> > When I get email alerts for mine, I only get back 20 lines back.
> >> > >> >> > Seems
> >> > >> >> > to be hard coded.
>
> >> > >> >> > As an example, monitoring listened ports:
>
> >> > >> >> > ossec: output: 'netstat -anp tcp | find "LISTEN" | find /V
> >> > >> >> > "127.0.0.1"':
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:80 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:135 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:443 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:445 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:513 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:2201 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:2481 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:3588 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:3389 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:5657 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:8779 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:9871 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:47001 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:49152 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:49153 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:49154 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:49155 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING
> >> > >> >> > TCP 0.0.0.0:49163 0.0.0.0:0
> >> > >> >> > Previous output:
>
> >> > >> >> > --END OF NOTIFICATION
>
> >> > >> >> How many lines are passed back to the manager? (hint: use log_all)
>
> >> > >> >> > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, "dan (ddp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> How many lines do you get back exactly?
>
> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:05 PM, alsdks <[email protected]>
> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> > Hello,
>
> >> > >> >> >> > I have set up a command to monitor file permissions in
> >> > >> >> >> > Windows (Since
> >> > >> >> >> > by default Ossec only supports POSIX ). The command for
> >> > >> >> >> > example is :
>
> >> > >> >> >> > <localfile>
> >> > >> >> >> > <log_format>full_command</log_format>
> >> > >> >> >> > <command>icacls c:\WINDOWS\system32\*.exe</command>
> >> > >> >> >> > <alias>icacls</alias>
> >> > >> >> >> > </localfile>
>
> >> > >> >> >> > Now the question: is there a limitation how many lines can
> >> > >> >> >> > OSSEC take
> >> > >> >> >> > and process as the output of a command ?Because I seem to be
> >> > >> >> >> > getting
> >> > >> >> >> > only up to letter c of the executables located in that dir.
>
> >> > >> >> >> > Thank you !
