<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously in All Apps and Add-ons</title>
    <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514670#M63012</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;That depends on your definition of 'solved'. If you need some of the specific configs that&amp;nbsp;Linux Secure Technology Add-On brings, but they get overruled by&amp;nbsp;Splunk_TA_nix, then that would probably qualify as a conflict. Same thing the other way around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you have 2 TAs targeting the same sourcetype, with different config, the end result may not be as intended, because you get a mix of both configs and/or one TA overruling the other on some settings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So yeah, any actual conflicting settings will be 'solved' by Splunk's precedence mechanism, but that doesn't mean the outcome of merging these 2 TAs is what you would want.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:25:26 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>FrankVl</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-08-18T11:25:26Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514667#M63011</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the description of the TA-linux_secure app, it states:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;It is intended to replace the security-relevant aspects of the Splunk Add-on for Unix and Linux (Splunk_TA_nix) and as such it's strongly recommended that the Splunk_TA_nix app be removed from your search head before installing this app as they may conflict.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My org is using the Splunk_TA_nix app, and I'm trying to figure out how these two apps might conflict.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;From what I can tell the only thing that might conflict are perhaps some of the configurations in props.conf. But then again, wouldn't that be solved since Splunk would use the Splunk_TA_nix settings over TA-linux_secure settings (because of&amp;nbsp;lexicographical&amp;nbsp;order)?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Perhaps you&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.splunk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/85232"&gt;@doksu&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;have some more insights?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:53:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514667#M63011</guid>
      <dc:creator>thilles</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-18T10:53:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514670#M63012</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;That depends on your definition of 'solved'. If you need some of the specific configs that&amp;nbsp;Linux Secure Technology Add-On brings, but they get overruled by&amp;nbsp;Splunk_TA_nix, then that would probably qualify as a conflict. Same thing the other way around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you have 2 TAs targeting the same sourcetype, with different config, the end result may not be as intended, because you get a mix of both configs and/or one TA overruling the other on some settings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So yeah, any actual conflicting settings will be 'solved' by Splunk's precedence mechanism, but that doesn't mean the outcome of merging these 2 TAs is what you would want.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:25:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514670#M63012</guid>
      <dc:creator>FrankVl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-18T11:25:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514673#M63013</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;'Solved' as in non-breaking for reports, dashboards etc that's already there and using current extractions (Splunk_TA_nix).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But yeah, I see your point. The end goal is to use the logs for CIM Authentication data model.&lt;BR /&gt;So I would guess 'solved' for us would mean that the TA-linux_secure settings that CIM normalize aren't overridden by the Splunk_TA_nix ones.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the clarifying input.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:39:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514673#M63013</guid>
      <dc:creator>thilles</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-18T11:39:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514678#M63014</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Even for existing content it could have impact. Matching settings will be merged in favor of&amp;nbsp;Splunk_TA_nix, but the 2 TAs can vary well have 2 different settings that each affect how for example the src_ip get's extracted and with both TAs active, both REPORT / FIELDALIAS settings get applied in some order (unless they have the exact same name).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:02:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514678#M63014</guid>
      <dc:creator>FrankVl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-18T12:02:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514804#M63041</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;a href="https://community.splunk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/148137"&gt;@thilles&lt;/a&gt; and thanks for the question. I'm the author of the Linux Secure Technology Add-On and just want to echo what &lt;a href="https://community.splunk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/87518"&gt;@FrankVl&lt;/a&gt; has said. Using the nix TA on endpoints for collecting events and the Linux Secure Technology Add-On on the search head won't cause a conflict, however having both the nix TA and the Linux Secure Technology Add-On installed on the same search head isn't advisable.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If what you want is field extraction and normalisation of Linux events to the Authentication data model then I definitely wouldn't use the nix TA because it does a poor job of it. I suggest using standard Splunk file monitor stanzas (i.e. not the nasty scripted things the nix TA uses) in your inputs.conf on endpoints to collect /var/log/secure (and /var/log/audit/audit.log) and the Linux Secure Technology Add-On on your search head/s for field extraction and normalisation to the CIM.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Speaking of /var/log/audit/audit.log - it's a &lt;EM&gt;very&lt;/EM&gt; rich source of information so I highly recommend you ingest it and use &lt;A href="https://splunkbase.splunk.com/app/4232/" target="_blank"&gt;https://splunkbase.splunk.com/app/4232/&lt;/A&gt; + &lt;A href="https://splunkbase.splunk.com/app/2642/" target="_blank"&gt;https://splunkbase.splunk.com/app/2642/&lt;/A&gt; .&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:04:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514804#M63041</guid>
      <dc:creator>doksu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-19T00:04:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Linux Secure Technology Add-On: Implications using Splunk_TA_nix simultaneously</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514906#M63051</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks, appreciate the added input.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And yes, doing standard file monitoring of&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;/var/log/secure&amp;nbsp; and/var/log/audit/audit.log, and using your TA-linux_auditd for the audit.log. Very nice work btw &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:47:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/All-Apps-and-Add-ons/Linux-Secure-Technology-Add-On-Implications-using-Splunk-TA-nix/m-p/514906#M63051</guid>
      <dc:creator>thilles</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-19T10:47:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

