On 8/1/13 4:50 PM, Jeffrey Blank wrote:
>> >>I'll see if I can throw some Python (or bash?) together to add empty
>> >>elements for the sake of convenience (unless Shawn would like to?).
> >I'll likely have time to take a stab on Saturday afternoon, so feel free
> >to take first crack if that's to far off!
Yup -- will do.
So.... I didn't end up having time this weekend =/
>> >>Next, I'll try to update an existing transform to
show a list of
>> >>requirements from a Profile (such as the STIG), along with indicators
>> >>(using green) about which have been tested.
>> >>Before long, we should have a nice publicly-viewable worksheet showing
>> >>progress on OVAL testing.
> >Would it be trivial to add a column indicating if a fix is present?
> >Since the fixes are net-new (vs inhereted from things like USGCB),
> >committed through the peer review process, their existence should be
> >enough to warrant a green box.
Sure, that's fair. It also gets us out of having to somehow tag them!
Plus, it will let me see at a glance whether anybody has committed a fix
for a Rule without vetting the OVAL, which is extremely undesirable from
the automation perspective.
Question for Leland on the OVAL signoff tags -- will it be possible for
FSO to create patches to reflect which OVAL checks they've tested, in
preparation for OVAL shipping in the STIG?