3 ms·
Ah, syslog. Around 18 years ago I was part of an group developing the next syslog protocol with security in mind. My company (one of the top infosec firms at th
by alecco 7y ago
Ah, syslog. Around 18 years ago I was part of an group developing the next syslog protocol with security in mind. My company (one of the top infosec firms at the time) had a product doing this already.
The standards group was a mess. Some other company without any credible security credentials was just forcing their bad implementation (TCP (!) and yet another protocol layer). They were backed by Microsoft and some other corporation. Cisco member just idling there. I ended up leaving as it was a waste of time. Never even bothered checking what happened with those protocols. But I've never heard of them again.
(tinfoil hat on) I think the Microsoft guys sabotaged it on purpose and succeeded.
- parliament32 7y agoDon't know about what group you're talking about but it ended up well: no need for a new protocol, just wrap in TLS with mutual cert authentication. TLS/TCP is fast enough nowadays that the overhead doesn't matter, and it saves you from having yet another standard.
- alecco 7y agoBut they did create a protocol with even more layers. Also our solution did not need two way communication (as per TCP) but had encryption. This is key in a lot of infrastructure when you change environments (e.g. DMZ to some internal subnet). TCP and SSL were supported, too. Our software was used by one of the larges Unix installations and one of the largest telcos in the world. While theirs, not so much.