Related
I have a server program that I am writing. In this program, I log allot. Is it customary in logging (for a server) to overwrite the log of previous runs, append to the file with some sort of new run header, or to create a new log file (it won't be restarted too often).
Which of these solutions is the way of doing things under Linux/Unix/MacOS?
Also, can anyone suggest a logging library for C++/C? I need one, regardless of the answer to the above question.
Take a look in /var/log/...you'll see that files are structured like
serverlog
serverlog.1
serverlog.2
This is done by logrotate which is called in a cronjob. But everything is simply in chronological order within the files. So you should just append to the same log file each time, and let logrotate split it up if needed.
You can also add a configuration file to /etc/logrotate.d/ to control how a particular log is rotated. Depending on how big your logfiles are, it might be a good idea to add here information about your logging. You can take a look at other files in this directory to see the syntax.
This is a rather complex issue. I don't think that there is a silver bullet that will kill all your concerns in one go.
The first step in deciding what policy to follow would be to set your requirements. Why is each entry logged? What is its purpose? In most cases this will result in some rather concrete facts, such as:
You need to be able to compare the current log with past logs. Even when an error message is self-evident, the process that led to it can be determined much faster by playing spot-the-difference, rather than puzzling through the server execution flow diagram - or, worse, its source code. This means that you need at least one log from a past run - overwriting blindly is a definite No.
You need to be able to find and parse the logs without going out of your way. That means using whatever facilities and policies are already established. On Linux it would mean using the syslog facility for important messages, to allow them to appear in the usual places.
There is also some good advice to heed:
Time is important. No only because there's never enough of it, but also because log files without proper timestamps for each entry are practically useless. Make sure that each entry has a timestamp - most system-wide logging facilities will do that for you. Make also sure that the clocks on all your computers are as accurate as possible - using NTP is a good way to do that.
Log entries should be as self-contained as possible, with minimal cruft. You don't need to have a special header with colors, bells and whistles to announce that your server is starting - a simple MyServer (PID=XXX) starting at port YYYYY would be enough for grep (or the search function of any decent log viewer) to find.
You need to determine the granularity of each logging channel. Sending several GB of debugging log data to the system logging daemon is not a good idea. A good approach might be to use separate log files for each logging level and facility, so that e.g. user activity is not mixed up with low-level data that in only useful when debugging the code.
Make sure your log files are in one place, preferably separated from other applications. A directory with the name of your application is a good start.
Stay within the norm. Sure you may have devised a new nifty logfile naming scheme, but if it breaks the conventions in your system it could easily confuse even the most experienced operators. Most people will have to look through your more detailed logs in a critical situation - don't make it harder for them.
Use the system log handling facilities. E.g. on Linux that would mean appending to the same file and letting an external daemon like logrotate to handle the log files. Not only would it be less work for you, it would also automatically maintain any general logging policies as a whole.
Finally: Always copy log important data to the system log as well. Operators watch the system logs. Please, please, please don't make them have to look at other places, just to find out that your application is about to launch the ICBMs...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/696321/best-logging-framework-for-native-c
For the logging, I would suggest creating a new log file and clean it using a certain frequency to avoid it growing too fat. Overwrite logs of previous login is usually a bad idea.
I'm writing a game that will have a lot of information (configuration, some content, etc) inside of some xml documents, as well as resource files. This will make it easier for myself and others to edit the program without having to edit the actual C++ files, and without having to recompile.
However, as the program is starting to grow there is an increase of files in the same directory as the program. So I thought of putting them inside a file archive (since they are mostly text, it goes great with compression).
My question is this: Will it be easier to compress all the files and:
Set a password to it (like a password-protected ZIP), then provide the password when the program needs it
Encrypt the archive with Crypto++ or similar
Modify the file header slightly as a "makeshift" encryption, and fix the file's headers while the file is loaded
I think numbers 1 and 2 are similar, but I couldn't find any information on whether zlib could handle password-protected archives.
Also note that I don't want the files inside the archive to be "extracted" into the folder while the program is using it. It should only be in the system's memory.
I think you misunderstands the possibilities brought up by encryption.
As long as the program is executed on an untrusted host, it's impossible to guarantee anything.
At most, you can make it difficult (encryption, code obfuscation), or extremely difficult (self-modifying code, debug/hooks detection), for someone to reverse engineer the code, but you cannot prevent cracking. And with Internet, it'll be available for all as soon as it's cracked by a single individual.
The same goes, truly, for preventing an individual to tamper with the configuration. Whatever the method (CRC, Hash --> by the way encryption is not meant to prevent tampering) it is still possible to reverse engineer it given sufficient time and means (and motivation).
The only way to guarantee an untampered with configuration would be to store it somewhere YOU control (a server), sign it (Asymmetric) and have the program checks the signature. But it would not, even then, prevent someone from coming with a patch that let's your program run with a user-supplied (unsigned) configuration file...
And you know the worst of it ? People will probably prefer the cracked version because freed from the burden of all those "security" measures it'll run faster...
Note: yes it is illegal, but let's be pragmatic...
Note: regarding motivation, the more clever you are with protecting the program, the more attractive it is to hackers --> it's like a brain teaser to them!
So how do you provide a secured service ?
You need to trust the person who executes the program
You need to trust the person who stores the configuration
It can only be done if you offer a thin client and executes everything on a server you trust... and even then you'll have trouble making sure that no-one finds doors in your server that you didn't thought about.
In your shoes, I'd simply make sure to detect light tampering with the configuration (treat it as hostile and make sure to validate the data before running anything). After all file corruption is equally likely, and if a corrupted configuration file meant a ruined client's machine, there would be hell to pay :)
If I had to choose among your three options, I'd go for Crypto++, as it fits in nicely with C++ iostreams.
But: you are
serializing your data to XML
compressing it
encrypting it
all in memory, and back again. I'd really reconsider this choice. Why not use eg. SQLite to store all your data in a file-based database (SQLite doesn't require any external database process)?
Encryption can be added through various extensions (SEE or SQLCipher). It's safe, quick, and completely transparent.
You don't get compression, but then again, by using SQLite instead of XML, this won't be an issue anyway (or so I think).
Set a password to it (like a password-protected ZIP), then provide the password when the program needs it
Firstly, you can't do this unless you are going to ask a user for the password. If that encryption key is stored in the code, don't bet on a determined reverse engineer from finding it and decrypting the archive.
The one big rule is: you cannot store encryption keys in your software, because if you do, what is the point of using encryption? I can find your key.
Now, onto other points. zlib does not support encryption and as they point out, PKZip is rather broken anyway. I suspect if you were so inclined to find one, you'd probably find a zip/compression library capable of handling encryption. (ZipArchive I believe handles Zip+AES but you need to pay for that).
But I second Daniel's answer that's just displayed on my screen. Why? Encryption/compression isn't going to give you any benefit unless the user presents some form of token (password, smartcard etc) not present in your compiled binary or related files. Similarly, if you're not using up masses of disk space, why compress?
I want to verify if the text log files created by my program being run at my customer's site have been tampered with. How do you suggest I go about doing this? I searched a bunch here and google but couldn't find my answer. Thanks!
Edit: After reading all the suggestions so far here are my thoughts. I want to keep it simple, and since the customer isn't that computer savy, I think it is safe to embed the salt in the binary. I'll continue to search for a simple solution using the keywords "salt checksum hash" etc and post back here once I find one.
Obligatory preamble: How much is at stake here? You must assume that tampering will be possible, but that you can make it very difficult if you spend enough time and money. So: how much is it worth to you?
That said:
Since it's your code writing the file, you can write it out encrypted. If you need it to be human readable, you can keep a second encrypted copy, or a second file containing only a hash, or write a hash value for every entry. (The hash must contain a "secret" key, of course.) If this is too risky, consider transmitting hashes or checksums or the log itself to other servers. And so forth.
This is a quite difficult thing to do, unless you can somehow protect the keypair used to sign the data. Signing the data requires a private key, and if that key is on a machine, a person can simply alter the data or create new data, and use that private key to sign the data. You can keep the private key on a "secure" machine, but then how do you guarantee that the data hadn't been tampered with before it left the original machine?
Of course, if you are protecting only data in motion, things get a lot easier.
Signing data is easy, if you can protect the private key.
Once you've worked out the higher-level theory that ensures security, take a look at GPGME to do the signing.
You may put a checksum as a prefix to each of your file lines, using an algorithm like adler-32 or something.
If you do not want to put binary code in your log files, use an encode64 method to convert the checksum to non binary data. So, you may discard only the lines that have been tampered.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, what is at stakes and what are the constraints.
Fundamentally: what you are asking for is just plain impossible (in isolation).
Now, it's a matter of complicating the life of the persons trying to modify the file so that it'll cost them more to modify it than what they could earn by doing the modification. Of course it means that hackers motivated by the sole goal of cracking in your measures of protection will not be deterred that much...
Assuming it should work on a standalone computer (no network), it is, as I said, impossible. Whatever the process you use, whatever the key / algorithm, this is ultimately embedded in the binary, which is exposed to the scrutiny of the would-be hacker. It's possible to deassemble it, it's possible to examine it with hex-readers, it's possible to probe it with different inputs, plug in a debugger etc... Your only option is thus to make debugging / examination a pain by breaking down the logic, using debug detection to change the paths, and if you are very good using self-modifying code. It does not mean it'll become impossible to tamper with the process, it barely means it should become difficult enough that any attacker will abandon.
If you have a network at your disposal, you can store a hash on a distant (under your control) drive, and then compare the hash. 2 difficulties here:
Storing (how to ensure it is your binary ?)
Retrieving (how to ensure you are talking to the right server ?)
And of course, in both cases, beware of the man in the middle syndroms...
One last bit of advice: if you need security, you'll need to consult a real expert, don't rely on some strange guys (like myself) talking on a forum. We're amateurs.
It's your file and your program which is allowed to modify it. When this being the case, there is one simple solution. (If you can afford to put your log file into a seperate folder)
Note:
You can have all your log files placed into a seperate folder. For eg, in my appplication, we have lot of DLLs, each having it's own log files and ofcourse application has its own.
So have a seperate process running in the background and monitors the folder for any changes notifications like
change in file size
attempt to rename the file or folder
delete the file
etc...
Based on this notification, you can certify whether the file is changed or not!
(As you and others may be guessing, even your process & dlls will change these files that can also lead to a notification. You need to synchronize this action smartly. That's it)
Window API to monitor folder in given below:
HANDLE FindFirstChangeNotification(
LPCTSTR lpPathName,
BOOL bWatchSubtree,
DWORD dwNotifyFilter
);
lpPathName:
Path to the log directory.
bWatchSubtree:
Watch subfolder or not (0 or 1)
dwNotifyFilter:
Filter conditions that satisfy a change notification wait. This parameter can be one or more of the following values.
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_FILE_NAME
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_DIR_NAME
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_SIZE
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_SECURITY
etc...
(Check MSDN)
How to make it work?
Suspect A: Our process
Suspect X: Other process or user
Inspector: The process that we created to monitor the folder.
Inpector sees a change in the folder. Queries with Suspect A whether he did any change to it.
if so,
change is taken as VALID.
if not
clear indication that change is done by *Suspect X*. So NOT VALID!
File is certified to be TAMPERED.
Other than that, below are some of the techniques that may (or may not :)) help you!
Store the time stamp whenever an application close the file along with file-size.
The next time you open the file, check for the last modified time of the time and its size. If both are same, then it means file remains not tampered.
Change the file privilege to read-only after you write logs into it. In some program or someone want to tamper it, they attempt to change the read-only property. This action changes the date/time modified for a file.
Write to your log file only encrypted data. If someone tampers it, when we decrypt the data, we may find some text not decrypted properly.
Using compress and un-compress mechanism (compress may help you to protect the file using a password)
Each way may have its own pros and cons. Strength the logic based on your need. You can even try the combination of the techniques proposed.
How would I get a subset (say 100MB) of Wikipedia's pages? I've found you can get the whole dataset as XML but its more like 1 or 2 gigs; I don't need that much.
I want to experiment with implementing a map-reduce algorithm.
Having said that, if I could just find 100 megs worth of textual sample data from anywhere, that would also be good. E.g. the Stack Overflow database, if it's available, would possibly be a good size. I'm open to suggestions.
Edit: Any that aren't torrents? I can't get those at work.
The stackoverflow database is available for download.
Chris, you could just write a small program to hit the Wikipedia "Random Page" link until you get 100MB of web pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random. You'll want to discard any duplicates you might get, and you might also want to limit the number of requests you make per minute (though some fraction of the articles will be served up by intermediate web caches, not Wikipedia servers). But it should be pretty easy.
One option is to download the entire Wikipedia dump, and then use only part of it. You can either decompress the entire thing and then use a simple script to split the file into smaller files (e.g. here), or if you are worried about disk space, you can write a something a script that decompresses and splits on the fly, and then you can stop the decompressing process at any stage you want. Wikipedia Dump Reader can by your inspiration for decompressing and processing on the fly, if you're comfortable with python (look at mparser.py).
If you don't want to download the entire thing, you're left with the option of scraping. The Export feature might be helpful for this, and the wikipediabot was also suggested in this context.
If you wanted to get a copy of the stackoverflow database, you could do that from the creative commons data dump.
Out of curiosity, what are you using all this data for?
You could use a web crawler and scrape 100MB of data?
There are a lot of wikipedia dumps available. Why do you want to choose the biggest (english wiki)? Wikinews archives are much smaller.
One smaller subset of Wikipedia articles comprises the 'meta' wiki articles. This is in the same XML format as the entire article dataset, but smaller (around 400MB as of March 2019), so it can be used for software validation (for example testing GenSim scripts).
https://dumps.wikimedia.org/metawiki/latest/
You want to look for any files with the -articles.xml.bz2 suffix.
I'm just learning C++, just started to mess around with QT, and I am sitting here wondering how most applications save data? Is there an industry standard? Do they store it in a XML file, text file, SQLite? What about sensitive data that say accounting software would need to save? I'm just interested in learning what the best practices for this are.
Thanks
This question is way too broad. The only answer is it depends on the nature of the particular application and the data, and whether or not it is written in C++ has very little to do with it.
For example, user-configurable application settings are often stored in text files, but on Windows they are typically stored in the Registry. Accounting applications typically keep their data in a database of some sort.
There are many good ways to store application data (call it serialization).
Personally, I think for larger datasets, using an open format is much, much easier for debugging. If you go with XML, for example, you can store your data in an open form so that if you have file corruption issues (i.e. a client can't open your file for some reason), it's easier to find. If you have sensitive data in there, you can always encrypt it before writing it to file using key encryption. Microsoft, for instance, has gone from using a proprietary format to open xml in their office docs. They use .*x extension (.docx, .xlsx, etc). It's really just a compressed folder with xml files.
Using binary serialization is, of course, the industry standard at the moment for most standalone applications. Most likely that is because of the application framework they are using (such as MFC, which is old). If you take a look at most of the serialization techniques in modern application frameworks, XML serialization is very well supported.
First you need to clarify what kind of data you would like to save.
If you just want to save some application settings, use QSettings to save your settings to an INI file or registry.
If it is much more than just some application settings, go for XML files or SQL.
There is no standard practice, however if you want to use complex structured data, consider using an embedded database engine such as SQLite or Metakit, or Berkeley DB files. XML files would also do the job and be human readable/writable. Preferences can use INI files or the Windows registry, and so on. In short, it really depends on your usage pattern.
This is a general question. Like many things, the right answer depends on your application and its needs.
Most desktop applications save end-user data to a file (think Word and Excel). The format is up to you, XML, binary, etc. And if you can serialize/deserialize objects to file it will probably make your life easier.
Internal application data such as configuration files or temporary data might be saved to an XML file or an lightweight, local database such as SQLite
Often, "enterprise" applications used internally by a business will save their data to a back-end database such as SQL Server or Oracle. This is so all of the enterprise's data is saved to a single central location. And then it is available for reporting, etc.
For accounting software, you would need to consider the business domain and end users. For example, if the software is to be sold to large businesses you would probably use some form of a database to save data. Otherwise a binary file would be fine, perhaps with some form of encryption if you are really paranoid.
When you say "the best way", then you have to define what you mean by "good".
The problem is that various requirements conflict with each other, therefore so you can't satisfy all of them simultaneously.
For example, if one requirement is "concurrent multi-user access to the data" then this suggests using a database engine, but that conflicts with "as small as possible" and "minimize dependencies on 3rd-party software".
If a requirement is "portable data format" then this suggests XML, but that conflicts with "compact" and "indexed".
Do they store it in a XML file, text file, SQLite?
Yes.
Also, Binary files and relational databases.
Anything else?