I understand the no government certification thing and not going to
argue with it. But as someone who uses Scientific linux most of the
time. I'd like to propose that we either add sl and cent or a generic
rhel derivative, perhaps by simply using a tailoring var. In a perfect
world I'd even suggest that RHEL is treated as a specific
RHEL_derivitive, just like SL or Cent. But I can only imagine the pain
that would cause. I think what would be nice is if we make some
centos and sl generic profiles, and fix the platform check in the OVAL
definition. In a way that the derivative producers wouldn't have to
mess with, but a specific user/ admin could with a simple tailoring
The problem as I see it right now, is that there is a pretty big
barrier to entry for admins of derivative systems. Which means that
there won't be a lot of eyes on the guide except for the die hards,
who also happen to have the time. And that doesn't seem like a good
long term thing.
I also get the sense that some of this cent os stuff is changing a
"little" bit with RH pulling cent in under it's wing, but they'd be
foolish to get Cent certified in any official way. If you want true
certification, you should probably pay.
just my 2 cents,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Shawn Wells <shawn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 8/15/14, 6:30 PM, Greg Elin wrote:
> Really interesting points.
> Can you also speak to Fedora vs RHEL and why Fedora is included?
> I think a CentOs generic is a smart approach.
We've been very careful to not claim any gov baseline compliance with
the Fedora content. Currently there is a generic/common profile:
SCAP Security Guide mailing list