RE: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?

2012-01-26 Thread nick rundy
Philip, thanks for your reply. I greatly appreciate it. You said, If you don't like the connections a program makes, then configure it not to do so. If you can't do that, then don't run such a bad program. This is what I'm trying to do on Ubuntu! :) if I can't log the process name, How do

Subject: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?

2012-01-26 Thread Vernon Cole
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:22:13 -0500 From: nick rundy nru...@hotmail.com To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)? snip A lot of people want to have a log of the outgoing internet connections of

RE: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?

2012-01-26 Thread Jason Todd
Nick, the package is called acct all by itself. IMHO it will not solve the problem you are facing. I have tried it and it is not user-friendly compared to what you are used to. I have watched numerous people go back to Windows largely because of user frustration/inability to discover/control

Re: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?

2012-01-26 Thread Robbie Williamson
Seems to be 2 separate issues in this thread: 1) Our system logging for firewall issues only logs PIDs via iptables with no program name. Given other applications like netstat and nethogs can do this, I think it's something we should try and work with upstream to address. (my $0.02) 2) Users

RE: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files) (imaginative solution/description presented)?

2012-01-26 Thread nick rundy
Yes, good insights, Robbie. Just to be clear, I'm not asking that an application-firewall (as Jason Todd was speaking of) be created to solve this problem. I'm totally fine with a solution that doesn't involve a firewall. It's just that an application firewall allows me to solve this