Replies: 6 comments 10 replies
-
In this case you need to provide the report with the OVAL results. It could a different condition in the OVAL that is making the rule to pass, for example:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @ggbecker , @yuumasato and @matejak |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @ggbecker, @yuumasato and @matejak |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
My initial guess is that this piece of jinja condition: content/shared/macros/10-oval.jinja Lines 611 to 617 in fa777d4 is missing in: content/shared/macros/10-oval.jinja Lines 929 to 934 in fa777d4 here is the report generated using the oscap-report tool and the ARF file you provided. (rename it to report.html) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @ggbecker And my concern is this regexp in the oval |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @ggbecker |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @yuumasato
I found that you are creator of the oval template in sshd_lineinfile template, and for it you are using sshd_oval_check. I think that this template does not work as expected. You are re-suing the macro sshd_oval_check, created by @matejak
May you check this (for example you can use as a reference the rule sshd_set_keepalive_0)?
What is the problem:
When we have in the file /etc/ssh/sshd_config a row for example
# ClientAliveCountMax 3
the oval check will pass, but this is not correct because in front of the parameter we have a symbol which will be interpreted as comments. Please check this (https://linux.die.net/man/5/sshd_config). The oval check should fail.
The remediation part after should remove the symbol for comment or to add a line to a sshd_config with correct settings.
I think that all rules which use this template will be / are impacted.
Have a nice day
Rumen
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions