Usage discussion #4
infraweavers
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 2 comments
-
That would be awesome and yes you're right, moving this out of the NSCP conversation was a good idea. Thanks for mentioning this, I'll keep an eye on the project give it a spin when I'm back from leave next week. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Definitely interested in this project, many thanks for sharing. Will closely watch future developments. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
@adamsweet decided it's probably slightly more polite to move the discussion out of the nscp threads.
We've opted for the idea of defining the command entirely in the API request, we've found that deploying the nsclient.ini to add checks to our infrastructure has become a primary bottleneck when increasing our monitoring coverage these days.
Not primarily, however we're currently playing with permitting the users to configure whitelisted/aliased commands in the configuration file that would limit the commands available through the API (in order to essentially lock down the script-signing enforcement); which would have the same effect as the NSClient.ini aliases.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions