February 14, 2011

Why a Cloud Logging Standard Doesn’t Make Any Sense

Filed under: Log Analysis — @ 14th of February 2011, 13:38

I wanted to post this review of the ‘draft-cloud-log-00‘ for a while now. Here it finally goes. In short, there is no need for a cloud-logging standard, but a way to deal with virtualization use-cases, ideally as part of another logging standard, such as CEE.

The cloud-log-00 draft is meant to define a standard around a logging format that can be used to correlate messages generated on different physical or virtual machines but belonging to the same ‘user request’. The main contribution of the current draft proposal is that it adds a structured element to a syslog (RFC 5424) messages. It outlines a number of IDs that can be and should be used for this purpose.

This analysis of the proposed draft outlines a number of significant shortcomings of the current draft-cloud-log-00 and motivates why it is a bad idea to pursue this or any other cloud logging standard any further. I urge the working group and IEFT to not move forward with this draft, but join forces with other standards, such as CEE (cee.mitre.org) and make sure that any special requirements or use-cases can be handled with such.

Following is a more detailed analysis of the draft proposal. I am starting with a generic analysis of the necessity for such a standard and how this draft positions itself:

  • Section 3.2 outlines the motivation and objective for the proposed standard. The section outlines the problem of attributing ‘user requests’ to physical machine instances. This is not a problem that is unique to cloud installations. It’s a problem that was introduced through virtualization. The section misses to mention a real challenge and use-case for defining a cloud-based logging standard.
  • The motivation, if loosely interpreted, talks about operational and security challenges because of a lack of information in the logs, which leads to problems of attribution (see last paragraph). The section fails to identify supporting use-cases that link the draft and proposed solution to the security and operational challenges. More detail is definitely needed here. The draft suggest the introduction of user IDs to (presumably) solve this problem. What is the relationship between the two? [See below where I argue that something like a guest ID or a hypervisor ID is needed to identify the individual components]
  • One more detail about section 3.2. It talks about how operating system (“Linux or Windows VMs”) log files will very likely be irrelevant since one cannot tie those logs to the physical entities. This is absolutely not true. Why would one need to be able to tie these logs to physical machines? If the virtual CPU runs at 100%, that is a problem. No need to relate that back to the physical hardware. It’s irrelevant. A discussion of layers (see below) would help a lot here and it would show that the stated problems are in fact non existent. Also, why would I need to know how many users (including their roles) [quote from the draft] share the same hardware? What does that matter? I can rely completely on my virtual instances and plan load accordingly!
  • The proposal needs to differentiate different layers of information, which correlate with different layers where logs can be generated. There is the physical layer, the virtualization layer which is generally also called the hypervisor, then there is the guest operating system and then there are applications running inside of the guest operating system. The proposal does not mention any of these layers and does not outline how these layers interact. Especially with regards to sharing IDs across these layers, a discussion is needed. The layered model would also help to identify real problems and use-cases, which the draft fails to do.
  • The proposal omits to define the ‘cloud’ completely, although it is used in the title of the draft. It is not clear whether SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS is the target of this draft. If all of the above, there should be a discussion of such, which includes how the information is shared in those environments (the IDs).

Following is a more detailed analysis and questions about the proposed approach by using various IDs to track requests:

  • If an AID was useful, which the draft still has to motivate, how is that ID passed between different layers in the application stack? Who generates it? How does it help solve the initially stated problem of operational and security related visibility and accountability? What is being used today in many applications is the UNIQUE_ID that can be generated by a Web server when receiving the request (see Apache UNIQUE_ID). That value can then be passed around. However, operating system resources and log entries cannot be tied uniquely to an application request. OS resources are generally shared across applications and it is not possible to attribute them to a specific application, or request. The proposed approach of using an AID is not a solution for the initially stated problem.
  • Section 3.1 outlines a generic problem statement for log management. Why is this important for this draft? There is no relationship to the rest of the draft. In addition, the section talks about routers, firewalls, network devices, applications, etc. How are you suggesting these devices share a common ID? There needs to be a protocol to exchange these IDs or you need a way to generate the IDs based on request attributes. I do not see any discussion of this in the draft. A router will definitely not include such an ID. The processing needed is way to expensive and would likely need application layer parsing to do so. Again, the problem statement needs rewriting and rethinking.
  • What is the transit field (Section 4.2)? It is not motivated, nor discussed anywhere.
  • In general, it seems like the proposed set of fields are a random collection of such. How do we know that there are not more important fields that are missing? And what guarantees that the existing fields are good candidates to solve the stated problem (again, the draft needs to outline a real problem it is trying to solve. What is stated in the current draft is not sufficient).
  • The client entity (Section 4.2.1) is being defined as either an IP address or a FQDN. From a consumer’s perspective, this can be very troublesome. If in some cases a FQDN is logged and in others an IP, in order to correlate the two entities, a DNS lookup has to be performed. If this happens at the time of correlation and not at the time of log generation, the IP to FQDN mapping might have changed. This could result in a false correlation of two not related events!

Charms & Pendants: charms.

I would like to point out that the ‘cloud’, be that SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS, does not require a new logging standard! We had multi-tier, as well as virtualized architectures for years and they are the real building blocks of the ‘cloud’. None of the cloud-specific attributes, like elasticity, utility-based payment, etc. require anything specific from a logging point of view. If anything, we need a logging standard that can help with virtualized and highly asynchronous, and distributed architectures. But these are not issues that a logging standard should have to deal with. It’s the infrastructure that has to make these trackers or IDs available. For a complete logging standard, have a look at CEE, where multiple different building blocks are being put in place to solve all kinds of well motivated problems associated with interchange of messages, which result in log records.

I urge to not move ahead with anything like a cloud-logging standard. The cloud is nothing special. Rather should CEE (cee.mitre.org) be leveraged and possibly extended to take into account virtualization use-cases. This draft has a lot of logical flaws, motivational shortcomings, and a lot of inconsistencies. What is needed is communication capabilities and standards that help extract and exchange information between the different layers in the application or cloud stack. The application should be able to get information on which guest it is running in (something like a guest ID) and the machine it runs on. That way, visibility is created. However, this has nothing to do with a logging standard!


  1. […] gaining a lot of momentum.  Not everyone is behind CloudLog though. Raffy Marty of Loggly wrote a blog post on why he doesn’t think it is […]

    Pingback by Announcing CloudLog — February 15, 2011 @ 10:23 am

  2. […] a bunch of controversy out there today as folks debate the relative value (or potential lack thereof) for Alert Logic’s recently-submitted cloud logging […]

    Pingback by In the cloud, log standardization is good; logging at all is better | SecurityCurve — February 28, 2011 @ 9:27 am

  3. […] a bunch of controversy out there today as folks debate the relative value (or potential lack thereof) for Alert Logic’srecently-submitted cloud logging […]

    Pingback by In the cloud, log standardization is good; logging at all is better - Security Curve BlogLog Management Central — February 28, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

  4. […] RFC focussing on logging in the cloud makes sense or not. Raffael Marty of Loggly shares the opinion that it’s quite useless to define yet another logging standard. In contrast, Gene Golovinsky of Alertlogic is the author of […]

    Pingback by Clash of Opinions: CloudLog RFC « New World D0mber — March 8, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

  5. Raffy – we think you’re absolutely right here. I know the guy who co-wrote the IETF draft, and I’ve been in touch with him.

    Let’s discuss ways to move forward on this.


    Comment by John Mark — March 13, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML ( You can use these tags): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .