Re: [SAGE] Re: Official sudosh announcement

[Doug Hughes <doug@eng.auburn.edu>]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Chris Zappala wrote:

>
>
> This is getting ridiculous. Everyone is getting defensive
> and insults are being exchanged.
>
> Before this goes any further, do any of you actually KNOW what the
> specific, documented SOx requirements are? Without this information,
> which has not been spelled out at all in this thread other than
> some vague idea of what the requirements are, this is just an
> argument over claims made in an email, and semantics.


Ask 3 auditors and you will get 3 answers.

In short, the original sudosh + syslog may well be entirely appropriate
in many implementations of SOX compliance.

(personally, I'd prefer nsyslog or ssyslog or syslog-ng or.. but,
standard syslog is probably fine as long as you document it and the
auditors say OK)