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

Define and standardize OSSEC Alert Key terminology #44

Closed
eloquence opened this issue May 10, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #100
Closed

Define and standardize OSSEC Alert Key terminology #44

eloquence opened this issue May 10, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #100

Comments

@eloquence
Copy link
Member

Similar to freedomofpress/securedrop#4122, let's standardize how we describe the keypair used for OSSEC alerts, and describe this in the glossary. For example, we sometimes call it "the GPG key that OSSEC will encrypt alerts to", but in the installation guide we also refer to it as "the admin’s GPG public key file (for encrypting OSSEC alerts)". Repeating the same long definition over and over again risks introducing small inconsistencies like that.

I would recommend that we call it the OSSEC Alert Key or OSSEC Alert Public Key, and that we call the key for the 24h alerts the Journalist Alert Key or Journalist Alert Public Key (use the most precise qualifier -- public or private -- where possible).

@eloquence
Copy link
Member Author

A recent support ticket shows that the phrase "the admin's GPG public key file" in the docs is definitely causing confusion.

@eloquence eloquence transferred this issue from freedomofpress/securedrop Oct 20, 2020
@eloquence
Copy link
Member Author

@joaedwar Good candidate issue for you to work on, will require some searching throughout the docs to identify all ambiguous uses. Happy to clarify as needed.

nathandyer pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant