On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:47:37 AM Shawn Wells wrote:
On 10/31/14, 10:31 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> I think there is a problem in the SSG content. I think that the current
> content is intended to check the system configuration. This would be done
> by examining the files on disk to warn about changes or thing that are
> misconfigured. There is also another category of testing that is
> forensics which checks the ephemeral / current values being enforced.
> Both are necessary and useful, but they should not be mixed.
I've opened tickets to track mount vs fstab, sysctl, and service
As/if you identify additional sections which need better separation,
please bring them to our attention!
Well, in a very brief look, the selinux label check in /dev is wrong, it
find /dev -context *:device_t:* \( -type c -o -type b \)
I think the guide should get a thorough review.
> This really needs to be addressed before anyone else uses SSG as
> of their own recommendations. Again, forensic checking is useful and I
> would say content should be specifically designed with that in mind. But
> it is not what should be in a baseline.
That's a bit strong of language. SSG represents a catalog of controls,
from which agencies make selections for formal baselines that we turn
into profiles. Often (e.g. with the STIG) the agency wishes to include
capabilities for static/persistent configuration (e.g. sysctl.conf)
*and* ephemeral system state (sysctl -a).
In retrospect, I agree. I am concerned that people not with a strong Linux
background don't grok the difference or perhaps learn the wrong thing.