On 9/25/13 10:48 AM, Josh Kayse wrote:
On 09/25/2013 10:40 AM, Saxon, William G CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-ATLANTIC,
58810 wrote:
> The CTO to which David is referring is 10-17 (28 July 2010) which
> mandates that HBSS be deployed on all Linux and Unix systems.
>
> I asked DISA about the HBSS/SELinux conflict and this was their reply:
>
> "SELinux is not compatible with HBSS...you can either use SELinux as
> is and submit a waiver to Cybercom, disable the SE features and
> install the required point product(s) (if possible), or migrate to a
> different OS."
There are *so* many things wrong with that response you received.
s/SELinux is not compatible with HBSS/HBSS is not compatible with SELinux/r
Anyway.
> When I contacted the HBSS office to find out how to get a waiver,
> they told me that a waiver was not necessary and that there was a
> "verbal understanding" between Cybercom and HBSS to give *nix systems
> flexibility in their configuration until the HBSS/SELinux conflict is
> resolved which is why Brain's system made it through IV&V.
FWIW, we (NSA + Red Hat) reached out to DISA FSO to get this sorted.
We'll see how things shake out, with aspirations for some type of
formally documented note in the STIG.
> Granted, informal "understandings" within the DoD make
me nervous but
> that is where we are in right now. So what's the best way to
> articulate this within a STIG? Beats me. I suggest the following
> for group discussion:
>
> ============================
> Group ID (Vulid): V-38667
> Group Title: SRG-OS-000196
> Rule ID: SV-50468r1_rule
> Severity: CAT II
> Rule Version (STIG-ID): RHEL-06-000285 Rule Title: The system must
> have a host-based intrusion detection tool and/or a host-based
> intrusion prevention tool installed.
>
> Vulnerability Discussion: Adding host-based intrusion detection tools
> can provide the capability to automatically take actions in response
> to malicious behavior, which can provide additional agility in
> reacting to network threats. These tools also often include a
> reporting capability to provide network awareness of the system,
> which may not otherwise exist in an organization's systems management
> regime. For DoD systems, the McAfee Host-based Security System
> (HBSS) is provided to fulfill this role. Adding host-based intrusion
> prevention tools increases system security by confining privileged
> programs and user sessions. SELinux is provided to fulfill this
> role. At this time, HBSS and SELinux are not compatible.
This is a good start, though to be fair, while SELinux plays a key role
in holistic host-based intrusion prevention, it is *not* particularly an
intrusion detection tool of itself. There's validity in keeping the two
(HIPS, HIDS) as separate requirements.
<snip>
What if the last 3 sentences were:
Adding host-based intrusion prevention tools increases system security
by confining privileged programs and user sessions. SELinux can be
configured to fulfill the security prevention role. At this time,
HBSS and SELinux are not compatible.
Perhaps a remapping of SSG rules back to CCIs
could be used. The
language from the requirement:
SRG-OS-000196
180.a. The system must have a host-based intrusion detection tool
installed.
<VulnDiscussion>Adding host-based intrusion detection tools can
provide the capability to automatically take actions in response to
malicious behavior, which can provide additional agility in reacting
to network threats. These tools also often include a reporting
capability to provide network awareness of system, which may not
otherwise exist in an organization's systems management
regime.</VulnDiscussion>
Remediation instructions
The base Red Hat platform already includes a sophisticated
auditing system that can detect intruder activity, as well as
SELinux, which provides host-based intrusion prevention
capabilities by confining privileged programs and user
sessions which may become compromised. Install an additional
intrusion detection tool to provide complementary or
duplicative monitoring, reporting, and reaction capabilities
to those of the base platform. For DoD systems, the McAfee
Host-based Security System is provided to fulfill this role.
The intent seems to be 'layered defense,' e.g. if native capabilities
break down within RHEL -- meaning someone corrupts not only the AIDE
database but further somehow mitigates SELinux -- the 3rd party software
(HBSS) will still hold integrity. This is laughable. If native
capabilities are mitigated, the box is *owned*.
Perhaps we could lobby FSO to alter this language to ensure that a HIDS
is installed, regardless of where it comes from.