On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:28 AM Shawn Wells shawn@redhat.com wrote:
On 1/8/19 1:39 PM, Gabe Alford wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:08 AM Watson Sato wsato@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:57 PM Trevor Vaughan tvaughan@onyxpoint.com wrote:
Personally, I think that anything marked as %config should not be checked because they are allowed to vary anyway.
I'm leaning towards ignoring config files in OVAL check, and making it explicit in rule description. And add a note with command that would output list of config files that do not match their rpm hash, in case you would like to review altered config files manually.
This isn't a great fix and is more of a bandaid. It would be better for us to open BZs and fix this in the troublesome RPMs spec files.
The XCCDF currently has language stating that config files are expected to change and should not be a finding.
From following snippet I understand that a configuration file that changed is a finding and should reviewed and fixed/waived.
A "c" in the second column indicates that a file is a configuration file, which may appropriately be expected to change. If the file was not expected to change, investigate the cause of the change using audit logs or other means.
If the OVAL is flagging config files, wouldn't that would be a bug in the
existing OVAL code?
Yes, my suggestion is to stop checking hash of config files in rule "Verify file hashes with RPM".
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...