On Fri, Mar 6, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Gabe Alford wrote:
CentOS STIG profile removal was NOT political in any way. There are
multiple reasons:
- No vendor supports CentOS.
- There is no security support for CVEs.
- There is NO DISA STIG for CentOS.
- RHEL-vendor supported and certified profiles do not map to CentOS...
The CentOS project clearly states this.
- CentOS is not common criteria certified.
- CentOS components are not FIPS validated and using it violates
Federal Law.
RHEL 8 components are also not FIPS validated. Does using RHEL 8 also violate Federal Law?
(And which law, specifically?)
V/r,
James Cassell
> - CentOS is not in alignment with STIG requirements because it doesn't
> meet them due to not meeting applicable laws and vendor support.
> - There are valid cybersecurity reasons for not using CentOS.
>
> Now, if CentOS started to have a security team and handled it's own CVE
> content, FIPS-validation, and addressed issues, would be a completely
> different story.
> This is the same for the OSPP, CUI, etc. profiles as well. In fact, any
> profile that uses NIST 800-171 or NIST 800-53, CentOS fails to comply
> with and encouraging
> the community to support faulty security profiles is bad security
> practice in and of itself.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:04 AM Watson Sato <wsato(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:05 PM Trey Henefield
<trey.henefield(a)ultra-ats.com> wrote:
> >> Copy that sir.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> Thanks for responding.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> I would love to contribute my changes. The problem is by the time we get the
latest release all fixed up and in alignment with STIG requirements, a new release comes
out and completely changes the way content is generated. For example, the last release
changed a bunch of compliance code to now use templates and jinja. So now its not as
simple to merge my existing content as I now need to learn how things are now done
differently, fix issues in the new process and still get my code to work and be compliant.
It is very tiresome doing this continuously every single release. We can never get things
up to speed and commit changes because by the time we turn around, everything is yet again
drastically changed.
>
> >
> > Hello Trey, thanks for sharing your pain.
> >
> > I'd like to better understand the aspects of your changes, are they only
related to content, like rules and remediation? Or do you also tweak the build system?
> >
> >> ____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> I am all for innovation and finding better ways to accomplish tasks. But
these types of changes need to be less frequently to simply allow the compliance code to
mature.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> In most development environments, including our own, there is the concept of
major releases and minor releases. Where major releases incorporate “major” changes into
the software, such as changing how things are done in the software. Minor releases provide
for bug fixes to further improve the reliability of the the software.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> I consider changing how all the code is compiled, adding new processes and
deprecating old processes, to be a major change as it has a cascading affect for much of
the content. Whereas, minor changes would focus on simply improving the content utilizing
the existing processes already in place.
>
> >
> > There is an idea to separate the build system from the benchmark directory:
https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/issues/5125
> > Does this idea resonate with you?
> > Separating the content from the benchmark would minimize issues when compiling
processes change, but it could bring another set of problems, like versioning, or upgrade
paths.
> >
> >> ____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> I had brought this up before but it just seems to be ignored.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> I really would like to see a better effort from the maintainers of this
content to improve on this issue so that those of us utilizing the content and improving
the content can have ample opportunity to upload these improvements so that the rest of
the community can benefit from these changes alike.____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> *Trey Henefield, CISSP____*
>
> >> Cyber Security Manager
> >>
> >> ____
>
> >> *__ __*
>
> >> *____*
>
> >> *
> *Ultra Intelligence & Communications____
>
> >> 4101 Smith School Road____
>
> >> Building IV, Suite 100____
>
> >> Austin, TX 78744 USA
> >> T: +1 512 327 6795 ext. 647____
>
> >> M: +1 512 541 6450
> >> ultra.group <
http://www.ultra.group/>____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> *From:* Matěj Týč <matyc(a)redhat.com>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2020 4:13 AM
> >> *To:* Trey Henefield <trey.henefield(a)ultra-ats.com>; RADUSINOVIC, IVAN
J GS-12 USAF ACC 805 CTS/DOO <ivan.radusinovic(a)us.af.mil>; Sherwin Farhang
<Sherwin.Farhang(a)newwave.io>; open-scap-list(a)redhat.com
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Open-scap] SCAP's for CentOS 7 & 8____
>
> >> __ __
>
> >> Hello Trey and others,____
>
> >> first of all, the openscap list is mainly about the scanner, while your
points are about the content, for which I recommend the
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org mailing list.____
>
> >> Regarding the main topic, I vaguely recall discussions about whether to have
CentOS profiles that would be inevitably failing (due to lack of certification of scanned
systems), or whether to remove profiles that require certifications to pass altogether.
The second approach has won, possibly driven by fears that the project would keep getting
reports that a rule is failing, so maintainers should do something about it and fix
it.____
>
> >> The scanner can't say "I am sorry, your system is not certified,
that's why the rule fails" - anyone using the scanner would see just another rule
failing, and one has to read the guide/report to correctly understand what's the
problem.____
>
> >> On 05. 03. 20 18:16, Trey Henefield wrote:____
>
> >>> I don’t have access to it at the moment as I am out of the office this
week and next, but I will provide this info when I return.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> I was just as surprised as anyone else, but a customer informed me of
this. Because it is open source software, they were able to do a complete source code
review and approved it based on that, since the DoD opensource policy permits this
now.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> We still prefer to use RedHat and bring them allot of business, but it
feels that this open source community is more business driven than community driven,
resulting in these types of decisions. But that should not be the case for an open source
community project.____
>
> >> If any of you don't agree with decisions that were taken, let your take
on this be heard in the appropriate mailing list. Community is inseparable from
participation, maintainers will take shortcuts if there is no visible pushback against
them.
> >>
> >> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> While I am on my soap box, I will just reiterate again, I am not a fan
of the drastic changes that are added every two months to a new release. Major changes
like this and overhauling how compliance code gets built every two months is just bad.
These major changes should be released in a new major release less frequently (6 months,
or even once a year). Rather, the incrimental releases pushed out every two months should
be more based on bring compliance code up to speed to provide more complete and accurate
coverage of the requirements. Everytime I merge in the latest release with our code, we
spend so much time going back and fixing all the things it breaks.____
>
> >> The Security Compliance field is gaining momentum, and it will continue to
do so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the project needs to accommodate
ever-increasing requirements - such as introduction of new profiles, new products, and
even new paradigms. The only way to do so is to refactor its parts and make them perform
better. We are so far very successful in this effort, and what you describe is the
inevitable downside of it.____
>
> >> So Trey, do you think that your code could be upstreamed? That way, it would
become possible for us to keep it in a good shape at a low cost.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Trey Henefield, CISSP*____
>
> >>> Cyber Security Manager
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> * *____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *
> *Ultra Intelligence & Communications____
>
> >>> 4101 Smith School Road____
>
> >>> Building IV, Suite 100____
>
> >>> Austin, TX 78744 USA
> >>> T: +1 512 327 6795 ext. 647____
>
> >>> M: +1 512 541 6450
> >>> ultra.group <
http://www.ultra.group/>____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *From:* RADUSINOVIC, IVAN J GS-12 USAF ACC 805 CTS/DOO
<ivan.radusinovic(a)us.af.mil>
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:54 AM
> >>> *To:* Trey Henefield <trey.henefield(a)ultra-ats.com>; Sherwin
Farhang <Sherwin.Farhang(a)newwave.io>; open-scap-list(a)redhat.com
> >>> *Subject:* RE: SCAP's for CentOS 7 & 8____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Hey, while we’re on the topic, does anyone have the link depicting it
being on the APL? Which APL are we talking about?____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Thanks!____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> S/F____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Ivan Radusinovic____
>
> >>> “R+10”; “Sgt Rad”____
>
> >>> ISSE || 805th CTS / DOO____
>
> >>> mob. 916-934-6592 || off. 702-652-8499 || ____
>
> >>> NIPR ivan.radusinovic(a)us.af.mil____
>
> >>> SIPR ivan.j.radusinovic.civ(a)mail.smil.mil ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> "Comm…. works 60% of the time.. all the time!"____
>
> >>> - GySgt McCown____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *From:* open-scap-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
<open-scap-list-bounces(a)redhat.com> *On Behalf Of *Trey Henefield
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:47 AM
> >>> *To:* Sherwin Farhang <Sherwin.Farhang(a)newwave.io>;
open-scap-list(a)redhat.com
> >>> *Subject:* [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Open-scap] SCAP's for CentOS 7
& 8____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> This is disappointing as it feels like a political move. There is no
functional reason why it could not be supported. It is approved within DoD as it is on the
approved software list.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Rather than removing its support, let the authorities that be make the
decision as to if it is acceptable for use.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Trey Henefield, CISSP*____
>
> >>> Cyber Security Manager
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> * *____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *
> *Ultra Intelligence & Communications____
>
> >>> 4101 Smith School Road____
>
> >>> Building IV, Suite 100____
>
> >>> Austin, TX 78744 USA
> >>> T: +1 512 327 6795 ext. 647____
>
> >>> M: +1 512 541 6450
> >>> ultra.group <
http://www.ultra.group/>____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *From:* open-scap-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
<open-scap-list-bounces(a)redhat.com> *On Behalf Of *Sherwin Farhang
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2020 3:47 PM
> >>> *To:* open-scap-list(a)redhat.com
> >>> *Subject:* [Open-scap] SCAP's for CentOS 7 & 8____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Hi OpenSCAP team,____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> I tried following a guide to deploy DISA STIG's from RedHat to
CentOS I was dissapointed this functionality is intentionally not supported anymore.
Can't a message be shot across saying "deploying this does not make you compliant
to DISA STIG because this is CentOS and does not carry the proper certifications"? I
just found this tool and tested it out to deploy pci-dss as a test to a vm and it was
really convenient that it worked so well. It would be nice if that functionality still
worked. Also when I run CentOS 8 and download the workbench no CentOS profiles are
downloaded but they do download for CentOS - 7 Likely a bug unless your team is actually
just removing all functionality for CentOS 8 moving forward which is disappointing as
well. Whenever I see a project remove functionality a fork is made and the community
splits. I hope to hear back.____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Thank you,____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> -Sherwin____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *Sherwin Farhang** *| CISSP | GCIH | CCSK ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ISSO____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> 6518 Meadowridge Rd. | Ste. 100 | Elkridge, MD 21075____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> P 443.701.5266| F 1.866.824.8914 | newwave.io
<
https://www.newwave.io/>____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> cidimage011.png(a)01D5E32F.9731D090
<
https://www.facebook.com/NewWave.Telecom.and.Technologies/>____
>
> >>> cidimage012.png(a)01D5E32F.9731D090
<
https://www.instagram.com/newwave_tech/>____
>
> >>> cidimage013.png(a)01D5E32F.9731D090
<
https://twitter.com/NewWave_Tech>____
>
> >>> cidimage014.png(a)01D5E32F.9731D090
<
https://www.linkedin.com/company/newwave_technologies>____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> cidimage015.png(a)01D5E32F.9731D090 <
https://newwave.io/>____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> MBE Certified; GSA Schedule 70
> >>> CMMI® Maturity Level 4 Rated SVC | Level 3 Rated DEV____
>
> >>> ISO 9001:2015 Certified____
>
> >>> *Microsoft** **Partner:* Gold Cloud Platform: Gold Datacenter; Silver
Application Development____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> Confidentiality Notice: This message and all attachments are for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain NewWave Telecom & Technologies
confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. This message is
intended for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed and any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited . If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message. ____
>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> *Disclaimer*
> >>> The information contained in this communication from
*trey.henefield(a)ultra-ats.com *sent at 2020-03-05 11:47:08 is private and may be legally
privileged or export controlled. It is intended solely for use by
*open-scap-list(a)redhat.com *and others authorized to receive it. If you are not
*open-scap-list(a)redhat.com *you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.____
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____
>
> >>> ___________________________________________________ Open-scap-list
mailing list____ Open-scap-list(a)redhat.com____
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-scap-list____
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Open-scap-list mailing list
> >> Open-scap-list(a)redhat.com
> >>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-scap-list
> >
> >
> > --
> > Watson Sato
> > Security Technologies | Red Hat, Inc
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
> _______________________________________________
> 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
>
> Attachments:
> * image001.jpg
> * image002.png
> * image003.png
> * image004.png
> * image005.png
> * image006.png
> * image007.png
> * image008.png