Maura,
I'm using the yum repos for my latest download also instead of git. I can
corroborate several of the false positives on my RHEL6 box after locking things down with
Security Blanket, and manually reviewing the failures. There are several that need
additional scrutiny. I used SCC 3.1 GA to run the checks as it seems to give me more
insight into the results than oscap does (any suggestions on increasing the
who/what/where/how/why logging w/o having to rebuild oscap from source appreciated).
I'd just reverted the VM where I'd done the SCC scan so I don't have the
results in front of me, but from memory :
57/58/59 - SCC was showing the line, including the correct value, then complaining that
the value didn't match what it was looking for. Wonder if this is a case of not
handling the leading '-' incorrectly?
73 - I know the RHEL5 STIG had an issue with whitespace at one point that I'd gotten
around
206-211 I don't have telnet on my box either, but I think it may be treating the
failure of finding /etc/xinetd.d/telnet as not finding 'disabled' in that file
240 I had this also, but we set the file to point to /etc/issue rather than
/etc/issue.net. The *contents* of both files are the same (the correct banner). Perhaps
the check should be checking the contents of whatever banner is being used rather than
just the setting references the right file name?
-Rob
________________________________
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org] on behalf of leam hall
[leamhall(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:02 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: Various False Positives?
Hey Maura!
I'm using the openscap-utils rpm and the content from the Fedorahosted zip file.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Maura Dailey
<maura@eclipse.ncsc.mil<mailto:maura@eclipse.ncsc.mil>> wrote:
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 pam_cracklib.so 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?
Leam
--
Mind on a
Mission<http://leamhall.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
--
Mind on a
Mission<http://leamhall.blogspot.com/>