On 9/26/2014 5:08 PM, green wrote: > Ric Moore wrote at 2014-09-26 14:18 -0500: >> Change is certainly needed when any pimple face kid can edit and hide his >> doings from a text log with nano. I think the change is necessary to harden >> up our systems. Otherwise, Microsoft will become the only secure server OS, >> as they don't mind hiding things at all. > > So, all other things being equal, binary logs are more secure than > plain text logs. Is that actually what you are saying? >
Yes, binary logs *could be* more secure than plain text logs. However, that's only a problem if your system is insecure. If you have properly secured your system, whether the log is text or binary is immaterial - no one is going to hack it, anyway. But binary logs are a real problem if you can't boot a system far enough to read them. Have you ever tried to read Windows event log if all you can boot to is a Windows command line prompt, for instance? It's impossible Even if all you can get is a very basic system, commands like cat, tail and similar are generally available - nothing fancy required. These can show your text logs. But good luck trying to read a binary log. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5425fccf.50...@attglobal.net
