ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
67711
|
Mon Nov 3 17:14:44 2014 |
 | David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | 2.9.2 | Re: How to insert new entry between two entries. |
| Daniel Roldan wrote: |
|
I would like to put between two entries a new entry.
My Users forgot to put a entry, and now they would like to put a new entry between olders entries.
For Example:
We have 10 entries order by Id:
300
301
302
...
They want to put between the entry 300 and 301 a new entry.
Is possible to do this feature?
Thanks!
|
There is nothing within elog itself to insert entry 310 between 300 and 301. If you allow branching in your logbook. make a second reply to entry 300, and add in the missing details. That entry will always be there as a reply to 300, but not obviously between 300 and 301.
From this point, any way to improve matters will require editing of the log files (default location /usr/local/elog/logbooks). I should warn that editing these files can cause problems, including elog to crash, and spotting your error can take a lot of effort. I speak from experience. I suggest that you have a look at a few entries, the layout of the entries etc first, and if you're still up for it I'll give a quick spin on how to improve the tidyness of how your entires look with 310 inserted between 300 and 301.
I should add what I would write only applies for certain for linux users, as it is my OS of choice. |
|
67710
|
Mon Nov 3 15:28:41 2014 |
 | Daniel Roldan | droldan@cells.es | Question | Linux | 2.9.2 | How to insert new entry between two entries. |
I would like to put between two entries a new entry.
My Users forgot to put a entry, and now they would like to put a new entry between olders entries.
For Example:
We have 10 entries order by Id:
300
301
302
...
They want to put between the entry 300 and 301 a new entry.
Is possible to do this feature?
Thanks! |
|
67709
|
Fri Oct 24 12:51:00 2014 |
 | Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug fix | All | ALL | POODLE vulnerability |
IMPORTANT SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENT
Recently the POODLE vulnerability has been announced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POODLE
ELOG is prone to this vulnerability if it runs directly the SSL protocol and can be accessed from the internet. If ELOG runs behind an Apache proxy, and the Apache server has been correctly configured (disabled the SSLv23 protocols), ELOG is safe as well.
To fix this vulnerability, ELOG needs to be recompiled after the attached patch has been applied. This prohibits ELOG to fallback to the insecure SSLv2 & v3 protocols and only use the safe TLSv1 protocol.
If you do not know how to recompile ELOG, please do not run ELOG directly accessible from the internet until the next binary release has been published.
/Stefan Ritt |
| Attachment 1: elogd.patch
|
diff --git a/src/elogd.c b/src/elogd.c
index fac34f8..13c619f 100755
--- a/src/elogd.c
+++ b/src/elogd.c
@@ -2342,7 +2342,7 @@ int ssl_connect(int sock, SSL ** ssl_con)
SSL_library_init();
SSL_load_error_strings();
- meth = (SSL_METHOD *) SSLv23_method();
+ meth = (SSL_METHOD *) TLSv1_method();
ctx = SSL_CTX_new(meth);
*ssl_con = SSL_new(ctx);
@@ -28902,7 +28902,7 @@ SSL_CTX *init_ssl(void)
SSL_library_init();
SSL_load_error_strings();
- meth = (SSL_METHOD *) SSLv23_method();
+ meth = (SSL_METHOD *) TLSv1_method();
ctx = SSL_CTX_new(meth);
if (getcfg("global", "SSL Passphrase", pwd, sizeof(pwd))) {
|
|
67708
|
Wed Oct 22 19:55:53 2014 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.9 | Re: Network Questions |
| Hal Proctor wrote: |
| Our network team is doing some upgrades and would like the following questions answered if possible. 1: Is the application able to communicate with a Domain controller running Windows Server 2012 R2? And.... 2: Is the application able to function in a Windows 2008 R2 domain and forest functional level? Thanks for your help, Hal |
ELOG contains Kerberos authentication at a basic level. If I'm not mistaken, the Windows Domain controller is based on Kerberos. I do not have any 2008 or 2012 domain controller, so I cannot test, but it's worth giving it a try.
/Stefan |
|
67707
|
Wed Oct 22 19:52:58 2014 |
| Hal Proctor | hproctor2@gmail.com | Question | Windows | 2.9 | Network Questions |
|
Our network team is doing some upgrades and would like the following questions answered if possible.
1: Is the application able to communicate with a Domain controller running Windows Server 2012 R2?
And....
2: Is the application able to function in a Windows 2008 R2 domain and forest functional level?
Thanks for your help,
Hal |
|
67706
|
Mon Sep 22 14:39:10 2014 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Info | All | V2.9.2-24 | Re: Sort by date prior to 2002 |
| Andreas Luedeke wrote: |
|
| Chris Jennings wrote: |
|
| Chris Jennings wrote: |
|
I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
|
Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.
|
I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd.
You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s'
Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39".
Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting.
Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.
Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again! 
|
Ok, well before 2286 approaches I fixed that bug and committed it to the GIT repository (master branch).
/Stefan |
|
67705
|
Wed Sep 17 17:45:18 2014 |
 | Andreas Luedeke | andreas.luedeke@psi.ch | Info | All | V2.9.2-24 | Re: Sort by date prior to 2002 |
| Chris Jennings wrote: |
|
| Chris Jennings wrote: |
|
I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
|
Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.
|
I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd.
You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s'
Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39".
Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting.
Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.
Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again! |
|
67704
|
Tue Sep 16 18:05:41 2014 |
| Chris Jennings | cjennings@cosma.com | Bug report | Windows | V2.9.2-24 | Re: Sort by date prior to 2002 |
| Chris Jennings wrote: |
|
I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
|
Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort. |