Why a search with two Reporting IP values can return no events in Fortinet logs.

Why might a search return no events when querying two different Reporting IP values?

• A. Wrong boolean operator
• B. Invalid IP Subnet

Answer: (A)

When querying for events based on two different Reporting IP values, the use of the correct boolean operator is crucial for the query to yield accurate results. If the wrong boolean operator is used, it could lead to an unintended logical operation that excludes relevant events. For instance, if an "AND" operator is used instead of an "OR" operator, only events that match both Reporting IP values simultaneously would be returned. This is highly unlikely, especially if the two IP addresses belong to different sources or locations. As a result, the query may return no events at all. On the other hand, if the IP subnets or specific IPs were indeed valid but not structured correctly in the query due to a boolean error, it would further reinforce the likelihood of receiving no results. Thus, understanding how boolean operators affect the logic of queries is key to successfully retrieving the desired event data.

Ever pulled a log search and felt like you were chasing shadows? You know the drill: you want events tied to two different Reporting IP values, but the query comes back with nothing. It’s maddening, especially when you know the data is out there somewhere. The snag isn’t always the data itself—it’s often the logic you use to glue two IPs together in the search.

Let me explain with a simple truth: the boolean operator you pick changes everything. When you’re hunting for events from two different Reporting IPs, the operator matters more than you might think. And in many cases, a wrong choice gives you zero results, even though the data exists.

Two IPs, one query: what’s going on under the hood

Here’s the thing about boolean logic in log searches. If you connect two IP values with AND, you’re asking the system to return events that satisfy both conditions at once. In practical terms, that means an event would have to come from IP A and IP B at the same time. For most security events, that’s basically impossible unless the two addresses are the same source reporting the exact same event, which isn’t how networks usually behave. So AND becomes the kiss of death for this kind of query—often returning no events.

Flip the operator to OR, and suddenly you’re looking for events from either IP. Now you’re casting a wider net, catching anything that mentions IP A or IP B. That’s typically what you want when you’re comparing two reporting sources or tracking activity across different devices or locations.

So the correct answer to “why might a search return no events when querying two different Reporting IP values?” is simple: the boolean operator is wrong. AND creates an impossible condition for most real-world logs; OR, or a properly structured multi-value query, aligns with how events are actually generated and stored.

IP subnet vs. IP value: what the alternative means

Let’s test the other option briefly, because it’s a common pitfall. B says “Invalid IP Subnet.” If you’re trying to specify two IPs as a subnet range, and the range is malformed or not supported by the query parser, you could miss results. But if the IPs themselves are valid and you’re using a standard operator (AND or OR) with a properly formed expression, the subnet issue isn’t the root cause.

In other words: invalid subnet can fail a query, but it’s not the classic reason you’d get zero events when you’re sure the two IPs exist in the logs. The more frequent culprit is how you connect those IPs in the search logic.

What to check before you blame the data

When a search returns nothing, it’s tempting to blame the data pipeline or the devices. A cooler-headed approach saves time and frustration. Here are practical checks that tend to pay off:

• Confirm the operator: Are you using OR to capture either IP, or inadvertently using AND? A quick swap from AND to OR often resolves the issue.

• Verify the field your query targets: Is Reporting IP the exact field in your data model? Different Fortinet products and log standards might label it slightly differently (for example, reporting_ip, src_ip, or a custom field). If you’re querying the wrong field, you’ll get nothing—even if the IPs are in the logs.

• Check the time window: Logs are heavy and time-bound. If you’re looking at a narrow window or a time zone mismatch, you could miss events entirely.

• Ensure the IPs are present in the data source: If you’re filtering to a specific device or series of devices, those devices may not report the two IPs within the chosen period. A quick, broad search can confirm whether either IP shows up at all.

• Look for sub-queries or filters: Sometimes a broader search is wrapped in additional filters (device type, event category, severity). Make sure nothing else is quietly suppressing results.

• Consider syntax and parentheses: Complex queries benefit from clear grouping. Parentheses ensure ORs and ANDs apply where you intend. Without them, you can get surprising, unintended results.

A tiny syntax refresher you can use today

If you’re working in Fortinet’s ecosystem—FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, or FortiGate logs—the principle is the same, even if the exact syntax varies. Here are a few practical patterns that typically behave as expected:

• Use OR to match either IP:

(reporting_ip: 10.0.0.1) OR (reporting_ip: 192.168.1.5)

• Use IN to list multiple values in one shot:

reporting_ip IN (10.0.0.1, 192.168.1.5)

• Group with parentheses to control logic:

(reporting_ip: 10.0.0.1 OR reporting_ip: 10.0.0.2) AND event_type: login

• If your UI supports it, a multi-value field can be handy:

reporting_ip: 10.0.0.1 OR reporting_ip: 192.168.1.5

If you’re not sure about the exact field name, a quick field discovery or a glance through the data model docs can save an hour. And yes, the interface might colorize operators or suggest completions; take those nudges as helpful hints, not gospel.

Real-world analogies to keep the concept memorable

Think of two Reporting IPs like two weather stations feeding data into a single map. If you ask for “storms that happened in both stations at the same time,” you’ll mostly end up with nothing because storms aren’t usually recorded at two distant stations at the exact second. But if you ask for “storms that happened at either station,” you get a full picture of where and when storms were observed. In log searches, OR is your friend; AND is the naysayer that expects something almost impossible to occur.

A few more tips that often separate quick wins from long debugging sessions

• Start broad, then narrow. If you can’t see any events with a broad time range or a simple single-IP query, the issue isn’t the data—it’s the constraints you’ve layered on top.

• Verify consistency across sources. If you’re aggregating from multiple devices, one may use a slightly different field naming or timestamp format. Normalizing those fields early on makes your life easier downstream.

• Don’t overcomplicate. Sometimes the simplest query—two IPs with OR—delivers the insights you need. If the output looks sparse, widen the search or check for related fields like host or device name.

• Document your query patterns. A quick note on how you structured a search helps you avoid repeating the same missteps next time and makes it easier for teammates to pick up where you left off.

• Consider a two-step approach: first verify that either IP returns events, then confirm which events refer to the same timeframe or same incident. It’s a small but powerful way to validate the data flow.

Getting comfortable with two IPs in a single search isn’t just an academic exercise

This is about practical, day-to-day security operations. When you’re sifting through logs, you’re looking for patterns, anomalies, and connections that tell a story about your network. A tiny misstep in a query—the choice of a boolean operator, a misnamed field, or a time window—can mask a real incident or obscure a legitimate activity. The goal isn’t to memorize a dozen command-line tricks; it’s to build a mental model of how events are captured, stored, and retrieved.

A quick stroll through a real-world scenario

Imagine you’re investigating two devices that sit in different branches of your organization. Each device reports to the same Fortinet logging backbone, but their IPs reflect different networks. You want to see all events where either device flagged unusual activity in a given window. You’ll save time by:

• Writing a query that uses OR to cover both IPs.

• Verifying the field name to ensure you’re querying the correct Reporting IP field.

• Checking that the time window matches when the activity occurred.

If, after that, you still get zero results, you can expand the net: search for related fields like destination IPs, event categories, or a broader time span. Sometimes the clue lies in a related field you hadn’t considered at first glance.

Bottom line: small changes, big clarity

When two different Reporting IP values are in play, the operator you use is the hinge. AND asks for an impossible combination in most real-world logs, which is why you often end up with nothing to show. OR, or a properly structured multi-value query, aligns with how data is logged and stored, and you’ll typically see the events you expect.

If you remember one thing from this quick tour, let it be this: start with the simplest, most inclusive approach, confirm you’re querying the right field, and then fine-tune with a precise operator and clean grouping. The rest will fall into place, and you’ll have a clearer picture of what’s happening across those two IP sources.

And yes, debugging queries is a little like detective work—there’s pattern recognition, a touch of intuition, and that gratifying moment when the invisible suddenly becomes visible. The next time you run a two-IP search, you’ll be ready to choose the right operator, spot potential pitfalls, and pull the insights you’re after without getting tangled in the weeds.