Replies: 2 comments
-
|
An example implementation (I dont like it much, open to suggestions of other hooking, it lacks cmdline option, it doesnt work for IP address, it doesnt treat logrotated audit logs (esp. compressed)), but otherwise.. it works: Example: and result: Does it make sense to have such feature? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Closed within #4277 . |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Cleaner takes hostnames/usernames/.. to obfuscate from some specific files in sosreport, if present, as the starting point for building its mapping dataset. E.g. hostname prepper takes
sos_commands/host/hostname_-fandetc/hostsas that source (https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/main/sos/cleaner/preppers/hostname.py#L28-L63).Some hostnames, IPs and usernames - hardly to be identified by parsers'
regex_patterns- can be hidden in audit logs like:Currently, we are unable to detect (hence obfuscate) such
SHORTHOSTNAMEorUSERNAME(and unsure atm about theIP.IP.IP.IP).There is probably no way of enhancing
regex_patternsto detect this (until we accept many false positives), so the only solution is to enhance preppers to parse audit logs and fetch hostnames, users (and maybe also IPs) from such loglines.This approach has two gotchas, however:
So my question is: is it worth of the feature? I thinks so, as we should obfuscate such sensitive data, if possible. But maybe the feature should be guarded by some cleaner option (
--preload-audits?) which is (disabled or enabled?) by default?What are your thoughts?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions