RE: Cross-Platform Log Analysis and Microsoft

<ducking to avoid laser beams>

mjr wrote:
> But it doesn't suck as bad as an "enterprise operating
> system" that is deployed on 99.99% of the computers on earth, which
was
> apparently designed by such retards that they couldn't have taken the
time
> to add such a trivial capability about 10 years ago.

Hi Marcus,

I know that many, perhaps a majority, in this forum would like Microsoft
to drop eventlog and just put a syslog agent in Windows.  Based on what
I know of Microsoft's business interests, technology investments and
decision making process I do not believe that is going to happen, but
it's not my decision nor has it ever been.

In the technologies with which I have been associated and with which
syslog might have been appropriate, syslog was always considered- and
rejected.  It's not that it didn't occur to us- we're neither stupid nor
ignorant of the industry- it's that it didn't meet our decision
criteria, which primarily were based on our management strategy and
secondarily on security.

Regarding security, it doesn't matter if the whole rest of the world
uses telnet, SNMP and syslog for management, Microsoft cannot afford to.
In spite of having one of the best track records in the industry for the
last several years we are still often the example held out for scorn,
even by you (I read SANS NewsBites and your web site; my coworkers and I
especially liked the commentary regarding the lack of an import function
in Software Restriction Policy).  Instead we use newer protocols with
the security characteristics we desire designed in.

It's simple- we are the ones wearing the bulls-eye on our t-shirts,
well-deserved or not, because you and other security professionals put
it there.  To say that we are now risk-averse would be putting things
mildly.  Syslog has an attack surface we are unwilling to tolerate in a
management protocol.  Others (many others) may make that trade-off.  We
can't.

Regarding management strategy, it's not exactly my idea of fun going
into a meeting with my VP and trying to explain to them why they should
spend dev resources on a feature whose sole purpose is to enable their
Microsoft product to be managed by *nix systems.  They tend to ask
questions that make me uncomfortable, and that I don't have good answers
to (surprisingly enough, *nix datacenter shops do *not* account for most
of our revenue).  My managers tend not to give me promotions and big
bonuses when I have meetings like that.  Oddly enough I don't recall
ever hearing a "go ahead" answer out of a meeting like that either...

We DO support standards-based event forwarding in the Windows platform.
In Windows Vista and future releases we support WS-Eventing and
WS-Management for event subscription management and event delivery to
and from Windows systems.  These are standards that we participated in
but which we do not control, and which are publicly documented.
Microsoft's published protocol interoperability strategy moving forward
is primarily with web services protocols:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/feb05/02-08IndigoHighlight
sPR.mspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082.aspx

You can find the WS-Management specification on the DMTF web site and
the WS-Eventing specification on OASIS' XML/SOAP web site.
http://www.dmtf.org/standards/wsman
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/eventing 

On Vista, you can set up event forwarding right in the Event Viewer
tool:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/4aa6403f-d4b8-43a4
-a70d-ceb7f88c524e1033.mspx?mfr=true

We do support syslog in our management products- Operations Manager (aka
MOM) and Configuration Manager (aka SMS) Servers.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555450 

However, our support for syslog is not what you are looking for.  Since
Microsoft is in the management products business, we design our
management products to manage devices which emit syslog, and since our
platforms have adopted a non-syslog event technology strategy, we
usually do not design our products to be managed by emitting syslog,
although occasionally we do.  Most of our products are designed to be
managed by Microsoft platform management technologies and those
technologies are all documented in MSDN, freely available on the
Microsoft MSDN web site, open to any vendor who chooses to adopt them,
so we're still open to being managed by third party products.

Now there are other things that I'm much more sympathetic to-
configuration options that don't work, events that don't occur when they
should, events that are missing information that reasonably they should
contain, lack of documentation on events, etc.  I'm very willing to
listen to and route feedback of that sort since we don't have a formal
channel for that sort of thing.  I can't do anything about lack of
syslog support in Windows though.

I agree completely with the principles behind the upcoming MITRE effort
and I hope to have a productive discussion there.

Best regards,
Eric