Charlie,
I understand that mechanism but my specific issue is running this in public
spaces (
runners). I don't have a great way to not go plastering
around my ability to pull from the official repos that is suitable for
FOSS-level CI testing.
Frankly, my instances last for an hour at maximum and could be running in
one of many (including donated to the project) locations.
These aren't production, these are development but I don't want to give
anyone the ability to abuse the account in my name via any given mechanism.
Trevor
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM Todd, Charles <CTODD(a)ball.com> wrote:
Trevor,
Tracing whether a reposync method is still license compliant, it’s still
pretty easy. I have an agreement with my software manager where I take one
of my licenses on RHN, or whatever we call it now, and give it the name of
my system. The “host name” means nothing and can be something like
“SHORTID-ACAS” or “SHORTID-CI1.” That allows you both to quickly asses
whether a license is still in use during annual reviews. Red Hat is hardly
in a position to complain since you bought, but don’t appear to have
allocated, a license. Small numbers of systems are easy to manage like
that. I’m fully compliant with licenses.
Charlie Todd
On Dec 30, 2018, at 6:05 PM, Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
wrote:
Hi Chuck,
So, I agree with you all the way up to FIPS. Unfortunately, the tracing
that we've done on the FIPS 140-2 requirement through various ties to
policy and FISMA *appears* to be unavailable except by the President of the
US, by named position. Now, it's possible that this tracing is incorrect
but I have yet to find anyone that could find another *documented*
interpretation that overrides the Congressional mandate as handed down to
NIST and inherited through the 800-53 and CNSS 1253.
That said, FIPS only applies for the "protection of sensitive
information". If you don't have any sensitive information (i.e. 100% test
and eval environment with independent credentials that have no access to
any other system) then fire away.
Also, this mandate only applies to organizations directly under the
Executive and Legislative branches of Government. The Judicial branch can
do what it likes.
Sorry for the slight rant, this is one of those particular items that just
drives me nuts in terms of laws (not policies) that people like to try and
ignore when it gets inconvenient.
In terms of packages, I completely agree with Charlie that it's really
simple to just grab all of the packages through various means so the RHN is
really just making legitimate use more difficult for systems like yours and
rapid CI testing systems. We specifically do not use one of the many ways
of circumventing the process so that we don't run afoul of any licensing
rules or restrictions.
Trevor
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 12:35 PM Chuck Atkins <chuck.atkins(a)kitware.com>
wrote:
> Why use CentOS when RHEL developer subs are free?
>
>
> For our environment where we have a small deployment of only 2-4
> machines, CentOS is much easier to manage off-line on an air-gaped
> network. Mirroring the CentOS repos is pretty easy to do with reposync and
> monthly drops to a web server on the red network. The CentOS workstations
> can then just point to the yum repos on said webserver and everything works
> like it's supposed to. Trying to do this with RHEL-proper is frustrating
> at best. A satellite server is way overkill for a deployment like this and
> setting up the clients for a "normal" yum repo requires removing and
> uninstalling all of the subscription / rhn packages. There's also the
> simplicity of only have 2 system repos to worry about to get everything
> available in CentOS (Base + Updates) vs dealing with the dozens of channels
> needed in a RHEL subscription to get the same set of available packages. I
> certainly get the value in all of the various options for managing large
> enterprise deployments but CentOS is just much simpler to deal with for us
> in a small deployment and software-developer-centric environment. We end
> up using both RHEL and CentOS for different use cases but need to apply the
> same security framework and settings to both.
>
> With regards to allowed security configurations, as a contractor we've
> never had issues with DSS and CentOS being allowed so long as we apply all
> the appropriate RHEL rules and can appropriately justify where we diverge.
> The only ones I've run into that end up not applicable across the two have
> been FIPS related, which we have to disable anyways to accommodate third
> party unsigned kernel modules for the Nvidia driver. The STIGs after all
> are just a guideline and place to start from so you can adapt it to your
> own environment with appropriate tailoring and justification, not a fixed
> "it has to be this way". Most of the government entities we work with
(DoD
> and DoE) use RHEL for their infrastructure servers and end-user
> workstations but CentOS for their projects and developer environments.
> Many of the DoE labs we work with even use CentOS on their large scale HPC
> deployments (LANL, Sandia, LLNL, etc.) while others use RHEL proper.
>
> - Chuck
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__getfedora.org_code-2...
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedoraproject.org_wi...
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
>
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.fedorahosted.o...
>
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list --
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__getfedora.org_code-2...
List Guidelines:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedoraproject.org_wi...
List Archives:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.fedorahosted.o...
This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee.
Please
notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient. If you
are
not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute
this
message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such
actions
may be unlawful. Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all
messages
and enclosures sent to or from this email address.
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list --
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --