SCC will log errors when it finds a check system it doesn't understand but those
errors will not stop the processing of OVAL or valid OCIL content. It will process all it
can and generate results. Rules that used check systems other than OVAL or OCIL are
marked appropriately as NOTCHECKED.
Jim
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
[mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Blank
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:12 PM
To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: SSG line item references
SCC barfing on check systems it can't handle is a problem with SCC. They were not
following the XCCDF specification for processing the available check systems. I don't
know if they've fixed it -- maybe Jack V is lurking here, and could say so.
I'd look at the OVAL results file if you want to see what openscap is gathering, in
order to determine the overall pass/fail in the XCCDF results. Look for a few different
options for output in `man oscap` -- look for "oval-results". As for all
stages of the OVAL evaluation (including what may be filtered) ... that's pretty
complicated and may require putting oscap into a debug mode, but removing any filters
temporarily may be informative.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Robert Sanders
<rsanders@trustedcs.com<mailto:rsanders@trustedcs.com>> wrote:
Interesting. I asked because when I last tried the SSG content with the SCC3.1rc6 beta on
a RHEL6.4 box I thought I saw a whole bunch of stuff pop out regarding the
OCIL-transitional stuff. Might have been just informational, but I punted then and just
ran the oscap stuff. I had hoped to get the increased verbosity out of the SCC scanner
for what failed to assist tracing down possible issues with what the prose specified vice
what the code was actually doing. So - since I segued into that, is there a magical
incantation to give to oscap to dump what is it *really* looking for without having to
trace through the content? I'll reference the question I raised last week about the
'Verify File Hashes with RPM' where it seems that the OVAL may be filtering stuff
out based on filepath vice where the prose doesn't indicate any filtering.
-Rob
________________________________________
From:
scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org>
[scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org>]
on behalf of Shawn Wells [shawn@redhat.com<mailto:shawn@redhat.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:57 PM
To:
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org>
Subject: Re: SSG line item references
On 8/20/13 10:51 AM, Robert Sanders wrote:
I had gotten a request from a customer to provide a mapping of
what STIG line items were covered by Security Blanket. I didn't know initially if my
customer meant the officially approved STIG that DISA posted or the SSG content. The
official STIG has the identifiers (such as RHEL-06-000001) in the actual line item code
within the xccdf document. The SSG content does not, and I was speculating that the
references (x.y.z) in the prose/reports were programmatically generated from the xccdf.
I should note, that having the references either in-line or available in a direct
mapping makes life much easier for those of us who read the contents of the files but are
doing so somewhat outside the scap/oscap world. Granted, the content is in a defined
format which an associated spec, and should be read in said fashion.
Turns out I only need to address the official STIG document for now, but this raised
the questions of how the SSG line items would be mapped back to the STIG line items,
including the concerns on how the issues of 'new entries' and
'deprecated/retired entries' would be handled to produce a consistent numbering.
Existing maps are to the CCIs. Do they want the RHEL-06-****** number
for some reason?
Stupid question of the day as well since I'm on the topic of
numbering. Is the SSG content directly consumable by other SCAP scanners? I realize this
may be a somewhat loaded question with a convoluted answer (SCAP version number, OVAL
version numbers, OCIL .......)
Should be compatible with any SCAP compliant scanner.
We've worked with
the Tenable/ACAS folk in the past, and the SPAWAR SCC guys have tested
as well.
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org<mailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide