<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: PIX: logging working badly in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236033#M611546</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The buffer isnt that big...You'll probably want to log it to a syslog server&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:17:57 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jlebaron</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-10-17T18:17:57Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236031#M611544</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have a Pix 515 with some rules, and when we put in one rule the logging option, all the buffer logging is working bad. It seems to be a bug. We have software 6.3(1).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TIA&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:02:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236031#M611544</guid>
      <dc:creator>venancio.martinez</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:02:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236032#M611545</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;What do you mean by it is working bad? Is it not showing enough data? The logging buffer is a small fixed size, so it isn't a real solution to log lots of data. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:56:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236032#M611545</guid>
      <dc:creator>mostiguy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-17T11:56:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236033#M611546</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The buffer isnt that big...You'll probably want to log it to a syslog server&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:17:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236033#M611546</guid>
      <dc:creator>jlebaron</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-17T18:17:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236034#M611547</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Working bad is because when a log is aplied on a rule, even if there is no traffic, the pdm gets slower and slower.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It doesn't depend on the amount of data, is the fact of putting log in a rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:38:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236034#M611547</guid>
      <dc:creator>venancio.martinez</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-20T14:38:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236035#M611548</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is not a problem of size. We want this feature to control if a rule is being used or not. We would like to have a better way than "sh access-list" in CLI-mode.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:44:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236035#M611548</guid>
      <dc:creator>venancio.martinez</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-20T14:44:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX: logging working badly</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236036#M611549</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So you are saying you have "log" keyword at the end of an access-list entry. And this is causing the trouble? Yes it may cause a lot of cpu resources if there is a lot of traffic on this rule. But still you need to use SYSLOG server. You also be cautious in using such a rule for logging. This is not a bug.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nadeem&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:05:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logging-working-badly/m-p/236036#M611549</guid>
      <dc:creator>nkhawaja</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-20T19:05:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

