Draft RHEL6 STIG Released! (UNCLASSIFIED)

Shaw, Ray V CTR (US) ray.v.shaw.ctr at mail.mil
Wed Feb 20 17:49:59 UTC 2013


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

During the public comment period, should I be sending comments to DISA 
regarding the benchmark content (which they didn't include in their download), 
or just regarding the prose (e.g. "I would like to see ___ as an acceptable 
setting as well as the stated value of ____")?

I have about 67 total checks that are failing (using SCC 3.1...getting 
somewhat different results with Open SCAP 0.9.3, which I will have more 
details on later).  Many of them are false positives (they comply with the 
prose, but - IMHO - the benchmark check is getting it wrong).  For the others, 
I'd like a change in the actual requirement.  I just want to make sure I'm 
reporting the right things to the right place.

[I also plan to try to "become a developer" and make contributions so I don't 
just feel like I'm complaining, but editing this sort of content is new to 
me.]

The benchmark content I'm using is the recently rebased RPM 
(scap-security-guide-0.1-10.el6.noarch.rpm).

Thanks,

--
Ray Shaw
Contractor, STG
Unix support, Army Research Labs

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/attachments/20130220/a32e540c/attachment.bin>


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list