On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:08 AM Watson Sato <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:57 PM Trevor Vaughan <email@example.com> wrote:
Personally, I think that anything marked as %config should not be checked because they are allowed to vary anyway.
I'm leaning towards ignoring config files in OVAL check, and making it explicit in rule description.And add a note with command that would output list of config files that do not match their rpm hash,in case you would like to review altered config files manually.
This isn't a great fix and is more of a bandaid. It would be better for us to open BZs and fix this in the troublesome RPMs spec files.
The XCCDF currently has language stating that config files are expected to change and should not be a finding.
If the OVAL is flagging config files, wouldn't that would be a
bug in the existing OVAL code?