perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

["Bigrow, John F" <>]

Hi Folks

My vote is for option 2 also.

I don't use the cacti that's there anyway



John F. Bigrow

Brookhaven National Laboratory


 (631)344-2648

 


-----Original Message-----
From: 

 
[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of Jason Zurawski
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 2:09 PM
To: 

Subject: [perfsonar-user] Re: Cacti/SNMP collection via the perfSONAR toolkit

All;

Jumping into the wayback machine for this one - earlier this year we did an 
informal poll about who is using cacti, and who would be terribly bothered 
about it disappearing.  At the time there was some support for it remaining, 
and some that felt it didn't provide a whole lot of value.  

Given the recent exploits of this product causing increased levels of 
heartburn for those in the user community, we wanted to raise the issue again 
and this time offer some possible suggestions on ways forward:

Option 1: Remain the same as we operate now.  Cacti is installed, it receives 
regular patches for when exploits occur, and it is 'locked down' to only 
allow administrative users on the toolkit access (e.g. the public viewable 
feature was removed a month ago after the last security vulnerability)  

Option 2: Remove cacti from the default install (not with the next release, 
but something in the near future), and provide a package (via yum) and 
instructions that would restore it for sites that want to use the tool.  

Your feedback is valuable as we try to balance the needs of security and 
functionality.  

Thanks;

-jason

On 13 February 2014 05:00, Brian Tierney 
<>
 wrote:

> Hi All:
> 
> We'd like to know if anyone is currently actually using Cacti, which is 
> bundled on the perfSONAR toolkit, for collection of SNMP data.
> 
> We are considering removing this in future releases, and wonder if anyone 
> will notice.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Tierney, http://www.es.net/tierney
> 
> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
> 
> Berkeley National Lab