Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening
From: Carson Gaspar (carson@taltos.org)
Date: 02/20/03
- Previous message: Reckhard, Tobias: "RE: [fw-wiz] DNS UDP packets > 512 bytes (was: (no subject))"
- In reply to: Volker Tanger: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Next in thread: John Adams: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Reply: John Adams: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Reply: Volker Tanger: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Carson Gaspar <carson@taltos.org> To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 03:17:49 -0500
--On Monday, February 17, 2003 4:57 PM +0100 Volker Tanger
<volker.tanger@discon.de> wrote:
> Quite easy: SSH with distributed keys plus some simple shell scripting.
> See e.g. http://www.wyae.de/aslcheck/ for examples. Main advantage is
> that you won't need to install anything (fancy) on the system in question.
Ah yes... and how much CPU do you have to spare for SSH session setup (on
both the systemn being monitored and your monitoring server)? And how often
do you want to collect the data? Doing this correctly requires something
better than:
result="`ssh server-to-monitor test-script`"
At least, it does if you want it to scale.
-- Carson _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Next message: Patrick M. Hausen: "Re: [fw-wiz] ipsec nat transversal"
- Previous message: Reckhard, Tobias: "RE: [fw-wiz] DNS UDP packets > 512 bytes (was: (no subject))"
- In reply to: Volker Tanger: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Next in thread: John Adams: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Reply: John Adams: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Reply: Volker Tanger: "Re: [fw-wiz] Query on OS hardening"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]