[asterisk-users] High verbose set at console effects the logger file "Full" - Why is that?

[Bruce B]

Wouldn't a shell script be a band-aid solution?

CLI verbose should have absolutely no effect on other loggings. I have been
saying this forever that Asterisk logging should be very strong and
separate of anything else including what we see on the CLI. This is
important for security reasons. You forget to put the verbose back to 9
then your Fail2ban stop working. You are debugging the server and playing
with "core set verbose" then you are momentarily opening for attacks.

I do understand what "core set verbose" was initially made for but these
things are not set in stone and should be improved given security is
becoming such a huge issue.

Separating logger.conf from "core set verbose" is the best solution.

Best,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Luke Hamburg <luke at solvent-llc.com> wrote:

> Fair enough.
> Giving up on the backport to 1.8 or 10 for now, I had a thought for a
> kludge.
>
> How about a shell script (scheduled with cron) that checks for any 'active'
> consoles -- any connected consoles where there has been user input within
> the last X minutes.  If it finds none, then set the verbosity back to 5 (or
> whatever level you want).
>
> There are a few problems with this -- I couldn't find any way to:
>
> 1) query Asterisk for a count or list of console connections, much less
> 'active' ones
> 2) query Asterisk for the current verbosity level (without changing it)
>
> Am I barking up another wrong tree here?
> Anyone have any other ideas on how to solve this problem?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Jordan
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:06 PM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] High verbose set at console effects the
> logger
> file "Full" - Why is that?
>
>
> It's not in Asterisk 10, it's in the current trunk, which will eventually
> become Asterisk 11.  The patch, while a very nice and useful enhancement,
> is
> unfortunately fairly intrusive.  I can't see it becoming part of the
> Asterisk 1.8 or Asterisk 10 branches, given (a) the fact that it is
> certainly an improvement and not a bug fix, and (b) the risk involved in
> back-porting a patch of that magnitude and scope.
>
> Matthew Jordan
> Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
>
>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
>               http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20120217/d7513448/attachment.htm>