On 11/1/12 12:34 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 05:31:00 PM Peter Vrabec wrote:
> >why do you consider this an openscap bug? I suppose it's a bug in the
> >content. The profile you want to evaluate reference to not existing rule.
Well, the original poster was using 0.8 and I know bugs have been fixed since
then. So, in troubleshooting the issue, its a simple step to just update to
the latest and see if its still there or its fixed. They said its still there,
so its time to look deeper at the content.
Maybe git bisect is helpful if it is known to have worked sometime in the
past.
There's a two part problem. Yes, some errors are caused by the bugs in
RHEL6 openscap (v0.8?). Specifically:
1 1871 In file 'xccdf-results.xml' on line 15992: Element
'{http://checklists.nist.gov/xccdf/1.1}ident': This element is not expected.
Expected is ( {http://checklists.nist.gov/xccdf/1.1}result ).
1 1871 In file 'xccdf-results.xml' on line 15995: Element
'{http://checklists.nist.gov/xccdf/1.1}ident': This element is not expected.
Expected is ( {http://checklists.nist.gov/xccdf/1.1}result ).
With that said, there are errors in the XCCDF content itself. Patches
coming soon.