On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:28 AM Shawn Wells <shawn(a)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(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:57 PM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
>> 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 --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Security Technologies | Red Hat, Inc