New tested field for OVAL Checks

Shawn Wells shawn at redhat.com
Mon Aug 5 21:04:09 UTC 2013


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?


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list