Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Index audit trail loses events on a rolling upgrade #31139

Closed
nik9000 opened this issue Jun 6, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Index audit trail loses events on a rolling upgrade #31139

nik9000 opened this issue Jun 6, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
discuss :Security/Audit X-Pack Audit logging

Comments

@nik9000
Copy link
Member

nik9000 commented Jun 6, 2018

The index based audit trail loses data on a rolling upgrade because the component doesn't start until the template for the audit trail is upgraded to the newest version and that doesn't happen until the a node with the new code is elected the master. I feel like we should document this somewhere or fix it.

@nik9000 nik9000 added discuss :Security/Audit X-Pack Audit logging labels Jun 6, 2018
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-security

@jaymode
Copy link
Member

jaymode commented Jun 6, 2018

I feel like we should document this somewhere or fix it.

I agree that this is not ideal, but this has been the behavior for a long time and is also part of why we plan to remove this feature and recommend filebeat (#29881).

We currently say:

The index output type should be used in conjunction with the logfile output type Because it is possible for the index output type to lose messages if the target index is unavailable, the access.log should be used as the official record of events.

We could make that statement a bit more generic as there are other cases where audit events can be lost.

@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Jun 6, 2018

Sorry! I didn't see that. I was scanning but not reading carefully. I wonder if we should use a warning tag?

@jaymode
Copy link
Member

jaymode commented Jun 6, 2018

++ to use a warning tag. I had to go searching for that statement; it wasn't where I first thought it would be.

@lcawl do you have any thoughts on how to make the warning clearer?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discuss :Security/Audit X-Pack Audit logging
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants