The variable for space_left_action is supposed to be set in the XCCDF Profile. The variable name is var_auditd_space_left_action and the stig profile just doesn't set it, so it defaults to email. I read the STIG, and the STIG agrees, it should be email (RHEL-06-000005).

- Maura Dailey

On 08/28/2013 05:05 PM, Robert Sanders wrote:
For extra sauce, the 'space_left_action' check is the one that went from PASS to FAIL, and the current value went from 'SYSLOG' to 'email'. 

From: Robert Sanders
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: Various False Positives?

  I just pulled the latest git stuff down and made it all, zipped up all the 'ssg-' files from the output directory and dropped that on the SCC3.1 GA scanner.  A stock box had 6 passes and 5 failures out of total of 388 items.  After locking it down with SB I went to 5 passes and 6 failures (yep - wrong way) out of 388.  Operator error on making the packages ?

  Couple of interesting questions on the results (after scan):

  Set default bash umask (ditto for csh and default umask)
    Examing the indicated files shows there are two places where the umask could be set, one for 002 and one for 022, with the UID of the caller determining which is used.  The scanner is catching the first instance. 

  Configure Auditd for space_left and admin_space_left:
    In both cases I inspected the /etc/audit/auditd.conf file and verify that the required line is present according to the prose. I do notice that the list of appropriate actions appears to be a single 'word' set to be:


Not sure what is going on under the hood to know if these are being glommed together for the prose but kept separate for the OVAL checks or not.

I need to try and rerun with the SCC rc6 beta, but may not have time today...



From: [] on behalf of Maura Dailey []
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Various False Positives?

On 08/28/2013 12:04 PM, leam hall wrote:
Hey all,

Just ran oscap with the xml files available on the website (Benchmark version 0.9). Here are the issues that seem to be false positives. Prefix everything with "RHEL-06-000". These are all marked as fail but the server meets the STIG.
Stupid question, but what are you running against exactly? The RPM or the latest git checkout? I want to make sure that if I run this, I'm seeing the same results, and I've made a lot of changes to OVAL checks in the git repository in the past few weeks. I'm going to run through your list, comparing it against the OVAL checks.
  9   rhnsd can be on if configured to Satellite server or similar
Fix text definitely implies this. It's not the only service that implies it's allowed in certain environments, but then proceeds to only accept a value of disabled.
 57   ucredit
 58   ocredit
 59   lcredit
For the previous 3, I'd like to see the line so I can troubleshoot.
 73   /etc/issue
Going back to my many many OVAL check updates, I'd like to see your exact /etc/issue so I can debug what went wrong. If it's an exact copy of the text from the STIG, I'll work off that.
 98  No ipv6 installed
Do you mean it's disabled on your system, but the OVAL checks are saying it isn't?
 99  "
165  adjtimex
167  settimeofday
169  stime  // Also, the STIG is wrong. There is no x86_64 stime syscall
The STIG actually says that stime is not necessary, which is kind of a strange wording, but the suggested line in the fix text prose is correct, at least. So far as OVAL checks go, I haven't gotten to testing audit checks yet. Maybe this is broken. I'll check it out once I've deciphered the OVAL check.
171  clock_settime
184-196, 200 chmod, chown, etc...
Haven't tested audit checks yet...
206-211  No telnet installed or turned on
These are both automated checks. Unless the package name is wrong, I don't know why they'd give false positives.
240  /etc/ssh/sshd_config Banner
The OVAL check was definitely working on my system when I last tested it.
271  If there are no removable partitions this is not a finding.
Working on testing this one now...
278  If the file permissions are more restrictive then it is not a finding.
324  No X running
Agreed, the GNOME checks need to be rewritten to have extended definitions to exclude machines that don't have X installed.
326   " 
346  Finding reported on umask 022
This is DEFINITELY a bug. The check section is actually pointing to a different check. The actual check for this rule was never written.
348  No vsftp installed, thus no file.
No OVAL check exists in SSG.
506  "hushlogin"
This one isn't in the SSG at all.
507  PrintLastLog
This one isn't in the SSG at all.

- Maura Dailey

Am I confused in thinking a system in run level 3 should net need to worry about X/Gnome findings?


scap-security-guide mailing list

scap-security-guide mailing list