[logs] ugliest application logs ever?

[David Corlette]

Hi all,

Quite frankly, your ugly logs are all amateur attempts at ugly logs ;-)  HERE is the ugliest log of all time:

Sep 27 22:09:47 sles10sp1oes oesaudit: type=SYSCALL msg=audit(09/27/07 22:09:45.683:318) : arch=i386 syscall=open success=yes exit=3 a0=80e3f08 a1=18800 a2=10 a3=80e3f08 items=1 ppid=12894 pid=12899 auid=unknown(4294967295) uid=user1 gid=admingroup euid=user1 suid=user1 fsuid=user1 egid=admingroup sgid=admingroup fsgid=admingroup tty=pts2 comm=bash exe=/bin/bash subj=unconstrained  key=(null)
Sep 27 22:09:47 sles10sp1oes oesaudit: type=CWD msg=audit(09/27/07 22:09:45.683:318) :  cwd=/home/user1
Sep 27 22:09:47 sles10sp1oes oesaudit: type=PATH msg=audit(09/27/07 22:09:45.683:318) : item=0 name=. inode=120549 dev=03:02 mode=dir,755 ouid=user1 ogid=admingroup rdev=00:00
Sep 27 22:09:47 sles10sp1oes oesaudit: ----

This is "File open" under OES2 (the Linux Auditing Framework). 



>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at  9:14 PM, in message
<b2591e2e0801231814l46dd8c3eqd083549ab0ec2360 at mail.gmail.com>, "Anton Chuvakin"
<anton at chuvakin.org> wrote: 
> All,
> 
> Ah, long time - no post! :-)
> 
> I wanted to turn this into a formal contest but figured I'd poll the
> list first: what are the ugliest, most useless application logs that
> you've seen? Logs that defy log analysis, that are full of numeric
> codes not explained anywhere? Logs that don't say what they mean (and
> vice versa)? Logs that omit the most critical piece of info?
> 
> Here is my example:
> 
> |22:22:32|BTC| 7|000|DDIC        |    |R49|Communication error, CPIC
> return code 020, <application> return code 456
> 
> Why it sux: numeric codes (twice), ambiguous language, no sense of
> priority, etc.
> 
> More?
> 
> Best,