On 6/4/13 1:43 PM, Nunez, Luis K wrote:

 

Another way to look at the remediation strategy is to have an independent source for building fix content.  The source would provide basic information needed to change a system to a secure state. This information would reside alongside the check information in the XCCDF policy. Having a common source will help in achieving consistency in remedial actions performed by differing scripting languages or fix systems .

This method could also be used as a  way to check parity in the checking and fixing content for correctness.

 

This is probably a good time to review Common Remediation Enumeration and see if fits into the project objective. CRE was created to identify and provide a reference point for actions necessary to correct a security issue.  Based on the CRE-ID one could build remediation scripts and systems in a referenced way.  The CRE-ID could also be used for traceability in troubleshooting and change control management.  


Reviewed the examples @ http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/cre/1.0/cre_examples.xml

And then the spec @ http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/cre/1.0/cre_1.0-draft.xsd

Seems like this would be a major schema change, requiring updates to every rule, but I don't particularly see the value. Maybe it's just me being dense =/

Seems like an interesting approach to have XCCDF express "requirements," OVAL to check system state, <fix> tags for automated compliance, then CRE for manual remediation. From what I gather, the CRE really is a different way to express SSG's usage of OCIL tags. Can you help explain what value would be gained by changing content to CRE?