On 2/26/13 9:40 AM, Jeffrey Blank wrote:
Shawn (et al),
The ticketing system shows me you'd opened up a bunch of tickets to add
a "New rule" for items which were in the old RHEL 5 USGCB profile.
Okay, great, this helps with ensuring there is continuation of that
profile/baseline with some consistency.
A few notes:
1) I've been able to close some of the tickets as "fixed", providing
explanation as to why. Some of them are being handled through other
mechanisms for RHEL 6.
2) If anybody starts executing on the other tickets, the goal is NOT to
add new rules as the ticket says, but rather to conduct investigation to
see if the Rule is applicable to RHEL 6 in the same way it was
applicable to RHEL 5.
I created many of the USGCB tickets simply to track deltas between
content I committed into the draft USGCB-6 profile and "other things"
which were in the RHEL5 USGCB. Doing so ensured we documented why RHEL5
rules were not carried forward into RHEL6. Seems like you picked up (and
agree?) with this approach.
3) In the ticket titles, there is some of the odd CCE language which
talks about disabling/enabling things "as appropriate". That's fine as
an identifier (and the RHEL 6 USGCB did use some of this language).
However, this style of language, which is intended for neither a human
nor a machine, should never appear in the project's XCCDF. (Just in case
anybody gets any ideas.)
They were just identifiers used in the RHEL5 content.