ctubbsii commented on PR #5483:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/5483#issuecomment-2810432110

   > I think that's not the case, and is likely a bug.
   
   I agree. I'll include that fix here. I didn't realize that canScan was 
overloaded and that this API was calling the one that didn't audit. That's 
definitely a bug. I was looking at the wrong one in AuditedSecurityOperation, 
so didn't catch that.
   
   > Doesn't the audit.log pose the same risk?
   
   Yes, but those risks can be managed independently. My goal isn't to 
eliminate the risk, but to ensure users are empowered to manage it. Adding what 
is essentially an audit message outside the audit logger breaks users ability 
to manage these risks on these granular boundaries. (But this assumes the audit 
logger is auditing these... which it currently isn't... as you've pointed out.)
   
   > If users wanted to mitigate this risk, wouldn't they turn the audit log 
off?
   
   That's one way to manage risk. More likely, though, you would just configure 
it differently... like put it on a different volume, or send to a remote 
aggregation service, or compress or rollover differently.
   
   > The audit log might be more useful if `denied` operations were logged at a 
higher level than `permitted` operations. For example, if `denied` were logged 
at `warn` and `permitted` logged at `info`, then the user could easily change 
the log level to reduce the noise in the audit log.
   
   Maybe not. I don't think log levels map well to auditing "importance". 
What's more important depends on what the auditor is looking for. Auditing 
unauthorized access attempts is very different than auditing who had access to 
a specific data set; which is more important in those cases seems opposite from 
one another. Child loggers to allow more granular logging control for these 
would be better than using log levels. Or users can just use filters today, or 
send audit logs to a database for later query, rather than try to do everything 
in the logging framework. In any case, changes to the audit logger is well 
outside the scope of this. My goal in removing the new info message is to try 
to align things to the current level of granularity (audit log vs. not audit 
log), not add more granularity for audit logs.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to