[Oisf-wg-configuration_language] Configuration Structure

[Matt Jonkman]

Nick Rogness wrote:
> Maybe the question should be who is the intended user base in the short and long term?  If it is just unix geeks like us, then XML is not the answer.  Then again, snort is already built for unix geeks.  Is the goal to just develop a snort++ or address a more broad audience??  

We're not looking to make a snort++, but we do need to stay compatible
in many ways. Config thankfully isn't one of them.

As for the audience, Security folks I'd say. I don't think we're
possibly ever going to make ids simple and user friendly enough for the
average joe computer user to config one.

We MAY be able to make it easy enough for the average IT guy (MCSE) to
do it though. I think that'll come along with the web based config tool,
or some very intelligent defaults.

But I don't think we need to consider that now. Unix geeks and security
people I think should be the target audience for the config language.
The rest we'll get with teh web config tool in phase 2.

Matt

> 
> Sorry, I'm trying to think ahead.  Just need some clarification.  YAML does look interesting.
> 
> Nick 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Jonkman <jonkman at jonkmans.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:33 AM
> To: Discussion about the configuration language and options <oisf-wg-configuration_language at openinfosecfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [Oisf-wg-configuration_language] Configuration Structure
> 
> Have you ever hand-typed out a long xml doc? :) I have, it's not pretty.
> In fact it just plain sucks. :)
> 
> Great machine language, but not a good human usable language.
> 
> YAML looks good. Lots of support, human readable, not a lot of typing
> overhead. Relatively flexible structure.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> Nick Rogness wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Victor Julien <victor at inliniac.net> wrote:
>>>> In other words, no configuration language exists in our codebase at this
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> Since our schedule is pretty tight, this probably means we should go for
>>>> existing code for this part of the engine. So suggestions for libraries
>>>> are very much appreciated.
>>> [SNIP]
>>> No one going to speak up about XML?
>> This is a no brainer, config should be in XML. Maybe the better
>> question should be why NOT use XML for the config syntax?
>>
>> As I mentioned on the rules list, using XML gives the engine the
>> flexibility to make parsing, integration, and versioning a breeze.
>> Using a well known library like libXML2 makes parsing in C fairly
>> straight forward.  Additionally, every other language worth a mention
>> already have XML libraries so building GUIs and integrating with other
>> party's software could be straight forward.
>>
>> Nick Rogness
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oisf-wg-configuration_language mailing list
>> Oisf-wg-configuration_language at openinfosecfoundation.org
>> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-wg-configuration_language
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Jonkman
Emerging Threats
Open Information Security Foundation (OISF)
Phone 765-429-0398
Fax 312-264-0205
http://www.emergingthreats.net
http://www.openinformationsecurityfoundation.org
--------------------------------------------

PGP: http://www.jonkmans.com/mattjonkman.asc