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."
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.
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.
Check Content:
Inspect the system to determine if intrusion detection software or intrusion prevention
software has been installed. Verify the installed software is active.
If neither a host-based intrusion detection tool (For DoD systems, this is HBSS) nor a
host-based intrusion prevention tool (SELinux) is installed, this is a finding.
Fix Text: Install either a host-based intrusion detection tool (For DoD systems, install
HBSS) or a host-based intrusion prevention tool (SELinux).
========================
William G. (Bill) Saxon, CISSP, GSLC, VIP, Security+, Network+, Master and B.S. CpE, B.S.
PHY
CSWF IAM2/IAT2
-----Original Message-----
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of
scap-security-guide-request(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:00
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: scap-security-guide Digest, Vol 25, Issue 74
Send scap-security-guide mailing list submissions to
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
scap-security-guide-request(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
scap-security-guide-owner(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of scap-security-guide digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS (Moessbauer, David)
2. Re: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS (Brian Peake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:35:29 -0400
From: "Moessbauer, David" <david.moessbauer(a)progeny.net>
To: "scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org"
<scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
Subject: RE: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
Message-ID:
<6BC30DD8322F394CB35455E71037B2F61252B95A58(a)ES2K7-MBX-1.progeny.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I am not sure about your comment regarding "[HBSS] isn't *mandated.*"
My experience with the fleet tells me otherwise, as both ODAA during accreditation and
deployed platforms are requiring compliance with HBSS of our system. Additionally, I do
believe I have seen a CTO distributed by the Navy that states otherwise, though I
can't seem to put my hands on it at the moment.
Please advise if I am incorrect in this belief.
v/r
David Moessbauer
(410) 627-5633 (M)
The Information contained in or attached to this communication may be confidential and
privileged proprietary intended only for the individual/s or entity to whom/which it is
addressed. Any unauthorized use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this information
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please contact
the sender immediately and delete from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of Truhn, Chad M CTR
NSWCDD, CXA30
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:12 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: (nwl) RE: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
Shawn,
Reverting back to an email you sent to gov-sec back in June (attached), you said:
" So, even though you've configured your system with all these auditing rules,
configured AIDE for integrity checking, *and* have SELinux enforcing, FSO wants you to
layer on an *additional* level of host intrusion detection which can provide
"complementary or duplicative monitoring, reporting, and reaction capabilities."
As stated in the STIG, DoD provides McAfee HBSS to perform this function. But it isn't
*mandated.*"
Then in ticket #262 from the SSG page:
"HIPS is a category of technology, and while McAfee? is commonly used to meet this,
is not tied to a particular product/vendor. Users would be wise to select technology which
is certified to run on RHEL6 without disabling key OS level protection mechanisms (e.g.,
if McAfee? breaks your system, use something else)." [1]
" MPO/FSO/RH: 3rd party products should work with the operating systems they run on,
without forcing users to disable security mechanisms. Won't fix."
I have always been confused about this language. Do we want SELinux enabled *AND* HIPS
installed? Or should it be an *OR*? One says McAfee HBSS/HIPS is fine, another says it
isn't. I'm confused!!!
[1]
https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/262
-----Original Message-----
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Wells
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:21 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
I received the following note from a colleague today, outlining the wording changes
between RHEL5 and RHEL6 regarding HBSS. I searched the mailing archives, and can't
figure out *why* the language was changed.
- Anyone remember why?
- Objections to reverting to the RHEL5 language?
EMail:
from the RHEL 6 STIG:
============================
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 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 system, which may not otherwise
exist in an organization's systems management regime.
Check Content:
Inspect the system to determine if intrusion detection software has been installed.
Verify the intrusion detection software is active.
If no host-based intrusion detection tools are installed, this is a finding.
Fix Text: 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.
========================
to look more like this from the RHEL 5 STIG:
=========================
Group ID (Vulid): V-782
Group Title: GEN006480
Rule ID: SV-37746r2_rule
Severity: CAT II
Rule Version (STIG-ID): GEN006480
Rule Title: The system must have a host-based intrusion detection tool installed.
Vulnerability Discussion: Without a host-based intrusion detection tool, there is no
system-level defense when an intruder gains access to a system or network. Additionally, a
host-based intrusion detection tool can provide methods to immediately lock out detected
intrusion attempts.
Responsibility: System Administrator
IAControls: ECID-1
Check Content:
Ask the SA or IAO if a host-based intrusion detection application is loaded on the
system. The preferred intrusion detection system is McAfee HBSS available through
Cybercom. If another host-based intrusion detection application, such as SELinux, is used
on the system, this is not a finding.
=========================
People are getting confused and SElinux and HBSS are getting installed with SElinux being
disabled to make things work.
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:00:13 -0400
From: Brian Peake <PEAKE(a)HIPKLLC.COM>
To: <scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
Subject: Re: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
Message-ID: <CE678204.7C03%PEAKE(a)HIPKLLC.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
I believe the current guidance is to have McAfee Agent installed only. At least that is
where we are at now, and just went through our IV&V. I also have uvscan installed
along with AIDE w/ daily cron jobs for both. HIPS etcŠ are not "required". But
again I am not an expert and do not delineate any guidance.
I would have to find the guidance, and am on travel right now, however when I return my
ePo/HBSS "guy" can give me the reference.
Very Respectfully,
Brian Peake
On 9/24/13 4:35 PM, "Moessbauer, David" <david.moessbauer(a)progeny.net>
wrote:
I am not sure about your comment regarding "[HBSS] isn't
*mandated.*"
My experience with the fleet tells me otherwise, as both ODAA during
accreditation and deployed platforms are requiring compliance with HBSS
of our system. Additionally, I do believe I have seen a CTO
distributed by the Navy that states otherwise, though I can't seem to
put my hands on it at the moment.
Please advise if I am incorrect in this belief.
v/r
David Moessbauer
(410) 627-5633 (M)
The Information contained in or attached to this communication may be
confidential and privileged proprietary intended only for the
individual/s or entity to whom/which it is addressed. Any unauthorized
use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error
please contact the sender immediately and delete from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf
Of Truhn, Chad M CTR NSWCDD, CXA30
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:12 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: (nwl) RE: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
Shawn,
Reverting back to an email you sent to gov-sec back in June (attached),
you said:
" So, even though you've configured your system with all these auditing
rules, configured AIDE for integrity checking, *and* have SELinux
enforcing, FSO wants you to layer on an *additional* level of host
intrusion detection which can provide "complementary or duplicative
monitoring, reporting, and reaction capabilities."
As stated in the STIG, DoD provides McAfee HBSS to perform this function.
But it isn't *mandated.*"
Then in ticket #262 from the SSG page:
"HIPS is a category of technology, and while McAfee? is commonly used
to meet this, is not tied to a particular product/vendor. Users would
be wise to select technology which is certified to run on RHEL6 without
disabling key OS level protection mechanisms (e.g., if McAfee? breaks
your system, use something else)." [1]
" MPO/FSO/RH: 3rd party products should work with the operating systems
they run on, without forcing users to disable security mechanisms.
Won't fix."
I have always been confused about this language. Do we want SELinux
enabled *AND* HIPS installed? Or should it be an *OR*? One says
McAfee HBSS/HIPS is fine, another says it isn't. I'm confused!!!
[1]
https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/262
-----Original Message-----
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf
Of Shawn Wells
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:21 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: RHEL5 vs RHEL6 language on HBSS
I received the following note from a colleague today, outlining the
wording changes between RHEL5 and RHEL6 regarding HBSS. I searched the
mailing archives, and can't figure out *why* the language was changed.
- Anyone remember why?
- Objections to reverting to the RHEL5 language?
EMail:
> from the RHEL 6 STIG:
>
> ============================
> 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 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 system, which may
>not otherwise exist in an organization's systems management regime.
>
> Check Content:
> Inspect the system to determine if intrusion detection software has
>been installed. Verify the intrusion detection software is active.
> If no host-based intrusion detection tools are installed, this is a
>finding.
>
> Fix Text: 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.
> ========================
>
>
> to look more like this from the RHEL 5 STIG:
>
> =========================
> Group ID (Vulid): V-782
> Group Title: GEN006480
> Rule ID: SV-37746r2_rule
> Severity: CAT II
> Rule Version (STIG-ID): GEN006480
> Rule Title: The system must have a host-based intrusion detection
>tool installed.
>
> Vulnerability Discussion: Without a host-based intrusion detection
>tool, there is no system-level defense when an intruder gains access
>to a system or network. Additionally, a host-based intrusion detection
>tool can provide methods to immediately lock out detected intrusion attempts.
>
> Responsibility: System Administrator
> IAControls: ECID-1
>
> Check Content:
> Ask the SA or IAO if a host-based intrusion detection application is
>loaded on the system. The preferred intrusion detection system is
>McAfee HBSS available through Cybercom. If another host-based
>intrusion detection application, such as SELinux, is used on the
>system, this is not a finding.
> =========================
>
> People are getting confused and SElinux and HBSS are getting
>installed with SElinux being disabled to make things work.
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
End of scap-security-guide Digest, Vol 25, Issue 74
***************************************************