[PATCH 04/25] Mapped CCI-000804 to unmet_impractical_guidance.

Willy Santos wsantos at redhat.com
Tue Jul 3 12:52:56 UTC 2012



----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Wells" <shawn at redhat.com>
To: scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 9:37:57 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/25] Mapped CCI-000804 to unmet_impractical_guidance.



On 7/2/12 8:51 PM, Willy Santos wrote: 


CCI-000804 requires uniquely identifying and authenticating non-organizational users. This is an organization-defined policy (e.g. group membership, identifier appended to username, etc.) and out of the scope of this guide.

Signed-off-by: Willy Santos <wsantos at redhat.com> ---
 rhel6/src/input/auxiliary/srg_support.xml |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rhel6/src/input/auxiliary/srg_support.xml b/rhel6/src/input/auxiliary/srg_support.xml
index fe2d83e..f5cac5a 100644
--- a/rhel6/src/input/auxiliary/srg_support.xml
+++ b/rhel6/src/input/auxiliary/srg_support.xml
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets this requirement by design.
 The guidance does not meet this requirement.
 The requirement is impractical or out of scope.
 </description>
-<ref disa="165,21,354,1094,371,372,535,537,539,780,1682,1383,370,66,37,213,221,25,28,29,30,24" />
+<ref disa="165,21,354,1094,371,372,535,537,539,780,1682,1383,370,66,37,213,221,25,28,29,30,24,804" />
 </Group> <!-- end unmet_impractical_guidance -->
 
 <Group id="unmet_impractical_product"> 


	SRG-OS-000121 	CCI-000804 	The operating system must uniquely identify and must authenticate non-organizational users (or processes acting on behalf of non-organizational users). 	Non-organizational users include all operating system users other than organizational users which include employees or individuals the organization deems to have equivalent status of employees (e.g., contractors, guest researchers, individuals from allied nations). Non-organizational users shall be uniquely identified and authenticated for all accesses other than those accesses explicitly identified and documented by the organization when related to the use of anonymous access. 

Could we make an argument that this requirement is met by uniquely identifying ALL users -- organizational or non-organizational -- by assigning them UIDs? 

IIRC, this requirement is frequently interpreted as "blue badgers staff are organizational users, green badgers are non-organizational users. both get unique identifiers." Through this interpretation could we map to met_inherently? 


_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide


I would agree with that. We'll discuss it with Jeff today and see where he stands on it.

-Willy


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list