On 8/7/07, Mordechai T. Abzug <morty (at) frakir (dot) org [email concealed]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:40:01AM +1000, James wrote:
>
> > LEA looks like the way to go and when I get around to it I will put
> > an rfi into checkpoint to add a switch to fw log to disable service
> > name reolution so that the logs will actually be useful (in a multi
> > vendor or SIM SEM environment).
>
> Is an "rfi" some kind of request for change? If so, how about
Yes. (request for improvement)
> explicit support for syslog? That's even better than a workaround
> based on "fw log".
Actually I am pretty sure on both points their answer will be use LEA.
I will try an rfi when I get out of my course.
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:40:01AM +1000, James wrote:
>
> > LEA looks like the way to go and when I get around to it I will put
> > an rfi into checkpoint to add a switch to fw log to disable service
> > name reolution so that the logs will actually be useful (in a multi
> > vendor or SIM SEM environment).
>
> Is an "rfi" some kind of request for change? If so, how about
Yes. (request for improvement)
> explicit support for syslog? That's even better than a workaround
> based on "fw log".
Actually I am pretty sure on both points their answer will be use LEA.
I will try an rfi when I get out of my course.
--
jac
_______________________________________________
LogAnalysis mailing list
LogAnalysis (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed]
http://www.loganalysis.org/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
[ reply ]