[logs] ugliest application logs ever?

[David Corlette]

We just do a replace on those before we do the NVP parse. E.g.:

src zone --> src_zone
dst zone --> dst_zone

Then we can run our standard NVP parser routine and it works like a charm...

>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at  5:20 PM, in message
<47990F41.2040603 at packetnexus.com>, Jason Lewis <jlewis at packetnexus.com> wrote:

> Except they didn't standardize the keys....
> 
> proto=6 src zone=Trust dst zone=Untrust action=Permit
> 
> There is a space before zone that hoses things up.
> 
> Dilley, Ron wrote:
>> Jas,
>>
>> This does not look too bad as long as you don*t use regex to parse it.
>>
>> Key=value all the way . . .
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/08 11:52 AM, "Jason Lewis" <jlewis at packetnexus.com> wrote:
>>
>>     I don't know about ugly, but logs that are difficult to parse suck.
>>
>>     Netscreen:
>>     messages:Dec 17 09:35:27 10.14.93.7 ns5xp: NetScreen device_id=ns5xp
>>     system-notification-00257(traffic): start_time="2002-12-17 09:40:18"
>>     duration=4 policy_id=0 service=tcp/port:8000 proto
>>     =6 src zone=Trust dst zone=Untrust action=Permit sent=715 rcvd=6561
>>     src=10.14.94.221 dst=10.14.90.217 src_port=1039 dst_port=8000
>>     translated
>>     ip=10.14.93.7 port=1217
>>     messages:Dec 17 09:35:27 10.14.93.7 ns5xp: NetScreen device_id=ns5xp
>>     system-notification-00257(traffic): start_time="2002-12-17 09:40:18"
>>     duration=4 policy_id=0 service=tcp/port:8000 proto
>>     =6 src zone=Trust dst zone=Untrust action=Permit sent=651 rcvd=2782
>>     src=10.14.94.221 dst=10.14.90.217 src_port=1040 dst_port=8000
>>     translated
>>     ip=10.14.93.7 port=1218
>>
>>     There isn't a good delimiter to break the log up, so it requires an
>>     custom regex. Trying to use a space is a nightmare. Give me something
>>     so I can quickly grab only what I need. I like pipe delimited.
>>
>>     jas
>>
>>
>>     Anton Chuvakin 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,
>>     >
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     LogAnalysis mailing list
>>     LogAnalysis at loganalysis.org
>>     http://www.loganalysis.org/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LogAnalysis mailing list
> LogAnalysis at loganalysis.org
> http://www.loganalysis.org/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis