On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Tim Boyer wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:32:47 AM UTC-4, dan (ddpbsd) wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM, dan (ddp) wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Tim Boyer wrote:
>> >> We've got an instance that we're finally ready to go
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:32:47 AM UTC-4, dan (ddpbsd) wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM, dan (ddp) > wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Tim Boyer > wrote:
> >> We've got an instance that we're finally ready to go with Active
> Response
> >> on. 2.8, running on a
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM, dan (ddp) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Tim Boyer wrote:
>> We've got an instance that we're finally ready to go with Active Response
>> on. 2.8, running on a RHEL6 server.
>>
>> Vanilla OSSEC works great; emails us alerts:
>>
>>
>> yes
>>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Tim Boyer wrote:
> We've got an instance that we're finally ready to go with Active Response
> on. 2.8, running on a RHEL6 server.
>
> Vanilla OSSEC works great; emails us alerts:
>
>
> yes
> t...@timboyer.org
> localhost
> timboyer-os...@sarat
We've got an instance that we're finally ready to go with Active Response
on. 2.8, running on a RHEL6 server.
Vanilla OSSEC works great; emails us alerts:
yes
t...@timboyer.org
localhost
timboyer-os...@saratoga.timboyer.org
10.127.70.130
ti...@timboyer.org