Skip to content

Conversation

@jan-cerny
Copy link
Collaborator

Add new rule accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time_with_zero which is almost the same as
accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time, but it allows the unlock_time faillock parameter to be set either to zero or to value greater than the value of the
var_accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time variable. By allowing also 0, we better align with the requirement 5.3.2.1.2 of the RHEL 10 CIS Benchmark v1.0.1.

Resolves: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OPENSCAP-6095

Add new rule `accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time_with_zero`
which is almost the same as
`accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time`, but it allows the
`unlock_time` faillock parameter to be set either to zero or to
value greater than the value of the
`var_accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_unlock_time` variable.
By allowing also 0, we better align with the requirement
5.3.2.1.2 of the RHEL 10 CIS Benchmark v1.0.1.

Resolves: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OPENSCAP-6095
@jan-cerny jan-cerny added this to the 0.1.80 milestone Nov 26, 2025
@jan-cerny jan-cerny added New Rule Issues or pull requests related to new Rules. CIS CIS Benchmark related. RHEL10 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 product related. labels Nov 26, 2025
@Mab879 Mab879 self-assigned this Nov 26, 2025
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
# platform = multi_platform_all
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing shebang


<!-- pam_faillock.so parameters can be defined directly in pam files or, in newer
versions, in {{{ pam_faillock_conf_path }}}. The last is the recommended option when
available. Also, is the option used by auselect tool. However, regardless the
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
available. Also, is the option used by auselect tool. However, regardless the
available. Also, is the option used by authselect tool. However, regardless the

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 27, 2025

@jan-cerny: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-openshift-node-compliance 62147a3 link true /test e2e-aws-openshift-node-compliance

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@jan-cerny
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have fixed shebangs and typo

@Mab879 Mab879 merged commit f9578f3 into ComplianceAsCode:master Dec 1, 2025
138 of 140 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CIS CIS Benchmark related. New Rule Issues or pull requests related to new Rules. RHEL10 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 product related.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants