Issue with Repo GPG Checking
by Trevor Vaughan
Hi All,
I've been re-roaming through the SSG and this is probably the first of a
many part thread regarding different checks.
TL;DR; The potential risk caused by enabling 'repo_gpgcheck' outweighs any
potential benefit if TLS is enabled.
In my opinion, the following check should *only* be enabled if all of your
repositories are internally managed
xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_ensure_gpgcheck_repo_metadata.
The reason for this is that YUM presently does not (to my knowledge) have
any way to differentiate between package signing GPG keys and repo signing
GPG keys.
This means that if, for instance, I host my packages via some shared Nexus,
then I have to add the Nexus GPG key to my trust list for the repo.
I fundamentally do *not* want to do this! I shouldn't be allowing my Nexus
maintainer to potentially install software on my system without my explicit
knowledge.
You should use TLS, and the repo should have a trusted certificate there
and that should be sufficient for the metadata until RPM can tell the
difference between these two certificates.
Please let me know if I've missed something, but I don't remember seeing
options to split out the two sets of certs.
Additionally, this is marked as 'high' severity and that seems to be
massive overkill considering that 1) the packages are still signed and
validated and 2) TLS is required.
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
5 years, 5 months
Fwd: [PatternFly] PatternFly Demo Recording and Survey
by Shawn Wells
Saw this from the PatternFly project. Public demos of what they've been
working on to keep the broader community engaged/aware and helps keep
devs accountable for producing demo-able code (read: things customers
would get value from).
Would it make sense for OpenSCAP family of projects (Workbench,
Anaconda, SSG, etc) to do something like this every month?
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [PatternFly] PatternFly Demo Recording and Survey
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:18:41 -0400
From: Leslie Hinson <lhinson(a)redhat.com>
To: patternfly <patternfly(a)redhat.com>
Fliers,
Thank you to everyone that was able to attend today's PatternFlydemo.
Please take the time to fill out the corresponding survey [1]
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HQHJVJ7> to give us your feedback on
what was presented. This survey will close eod on Friday, July 6.
If you missed the meeting, you can catch the recording [2]
<https://youtu.be/PLIMerrV0sE> on our youtube channel.
[1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HQHJVJ7
[2] https://youtu.be/PLIMerrV0sE
--
Leslie Hinson
PatternFly Lead, UXD
5 years, 8 months
CI Enabled Cross Checking
by Trevor Vaughan
Hi All,
As part of delving into InSpec for my CI tests, I decided that I need to
have some form of baseline to follow.
To that end, our public STIG profile does the following:
1. Build a system
2. Download and compile the SSG
3. Run an oscap remediate using the SSG
4. Check the system using InSpec
The idea here is that the remediation should get the system to a point
where the more static OVAL checks that SCAP uses should be used as a low
water mark for the more dynamic InSpec checks.
I wanted to share the tests in Travis CI in case it helps anyone here find
issues with the SSG in the future. For instance, some of the profile
renaming just bit us and makes automating the scans pretty interesting.
Anyway, you can watch the 'System Test' build stage here
https://travis-ci.org/simp/inspec-profile-disa_stig-el7 that will get
triggered any time things are updated in the repo and, of course, you can
also download it and run it locally.
Ideally, these tests will start showing a 100% pass across the board and
this can serve as some help to the community.
Thanks,
Trevor
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
5 years, 9 months
New GitHub teams
by Martin Preisler
GitHub has been notifying us for ages that we should migrate from
legacy teams to the new system. I decided it was time to finally do
it.
As part of this change the Owners team has been removed. GitHub
recommends doing that (because once you migrate, the "Owners" team
loses its special meaning).
We had 10 teams in the organization which was way too much. And they
were overlapping a lot. I decided to merge them into just 2 teams -
trusted tools developers for everything except SSG and trusted SSG
developers for SSG. These 2 teams have full push rights to the repos
(github write access). This should make it much simpler to audit and
keep up to date. Besides, if we trust someone to push into openscap we
probably trust them to push into scap-workbench as well...
You might have received notifications about deleted teams and you
might have received invites to the new teams. I couldn't find any
option to migrate people from team to team without notifying them like
this, sorry for the inconvenience. I tried my best to keep everybody's
permissions but with the amount of people and teams maybe I missed
something. In case you encounter permission issues please let me know
and I will fix it.
--
Martin Preisler
5 years, 9 months