[PATCH 3/7] Minor edits to partition section

Shawn Wells shawn at redhat.com
Fri Aug 31 01:23:36 UTC 2012


On 8/28/12 10:09 AM, Jeffrey Blank wrote:
> ACK or NACK.  You can decide.  I don't see any harm or value in these
> changes.
>
> Also, in terms of priorities, we really need editing now instead of copy
> editing.  A very fast scan over the entire document will identify large
> sections that need reworking.  All of the introductory sections, on the
> other hand, are rather presentable.
>
> This will also be apparent by looking at some of the tables, such as:
> http://people.redhat.com/swells/scap-security-guide/RHEL6/output/rhel6-table-nistrefs.html
>
> This will also indicate issues with the Rule vs Group situation, which
> requiress a form of editing.  The SSL and Postfix sections are
> especially in need of relabeling some Rules as Groups, or perhaps making
> Rules more granular. (Iff -- and I cannot stress this enough -- there is
> a security argument for making a compliance check out of a setting.
> This is really worth repeating. Only make something a Rule if you want
> to make a compliance check out of it.  This implies that you believe
> there is actual value in making a busy administrator be "compliant" with
> something.)
>
> Also regarding that table, many of the NIST 800-53 refs are probably
> wrong.  While based on the references from the USGCB work (which was
> good), I'm sure that many are simply copy-paste errors at this point.
>
>

Pushed


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list