Bug 2156192

Summary: Some rules have proper STIG references but they are not part of STIG profile
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Reporter: Rajesh Dulhani <rdulhani>
Component: scap-security-guideAssignee: Marcus Burghardt <maburgha>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Jiri Jaburek <jjaburek>
Severity: high Docs Contact: Jan Fiala <jafiala>
Priority: high    
Version: 8.7CC: ccheney, ggasparb, jafiala, jjaburek, maburgha, mhaicman, mlysonek, rmetrich, wsato
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Triaged, ZStream
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: scap-security-guide-0.1.66-1.el8 Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
.RHEL 8 STIG profiles are better aligned with the benchmark Four existing rules that satisfy RHEL 8 STIG requirements were part of the data stream but were previously not included in the STIG profiles (`stig` and `stig_gui`). With this update, the following rules are now included in the profiles: * `accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_dir` * `accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_silent` * `account_password_selinux_faillock_dir` * `fapolicy_default_deny` As a result, the RHEL 8 STIG profiles have a higher coverage.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 2168069 2168070 2168071 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-05-16 08:39:41 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 2168069, 2168070, 2168071    

Description Rajesh Dulhani 2022-12-25 07:30:50 UTC
Description of problem:


From StigViewer, RHEL-08-010130 is supposed to apply on the content of /etc/login.defs.
The implementation is indeed matching, as shown below:

~~~
./linux_os/guide/system/accounts/accounts-pam/set_password_hashing_algorithm/set_password_hashing_min_rounds_logindefs/rule.yml

stigid@rhel8: RHEL-08-010130
./products/rhel8/profiles/stig.profile
~~~

# RHEL-08-010130
- set_password_hashing_min_rounds_logindefs

However other STIG files we have reference another rule applying to pam_unix instead (accounts_password_pam_unix_rounds_password_auth):

~~~
./controls/stig_rhel8.yml

-   id: RHEL-08-010130
    levels:
        - medium
    title: The RHEL 8 password-auth file must be configured to use a sufficient number
        of hashing rounds.
    rules:
        - accounts_password_pam_unix_rounds_password_auth
    status: automated
./linux_os/guide/system/accounts/accounts-restrictions/password_storage/accounts_password_pam_unix_rounds_password_auth/rule.yml:
~~~


references:

~~~
    anssi: BP28(R32)
    disa: CCI-000196
    srg: SRG-OS-000073-GPOS-00041
    stigid@ol8: OL08-00-010130
~~~


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


scap-security-guide-0.1.63-4.el8.noarch.rpm

Comment 2 Vojtech Polasek 2023-01-02 12:24:58 UTC
Hello Rajesh,
it is true that the rule accounts_password_pam_unix_rounds_password_auth is placed into the stig_rhel8.yml control file. However, this control file exists in upstream, but it is not used by any product.
The STIG profile for RHEL8 can be found in products/rhel8/profiles/stig.profile.
The rule is part of ANSSI profiles.
So yes, the rule is in the datastream, but it is not part of the STIG profile for RHEL8.
Does this explanation solve the problem?

Comment 3 Vojtech Polasek 2023-01-06 09:46:08 UTC
The file controls/stig_rhel8.yml has been dropped from the content to prevent confusion:
https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/10023
Does it solve the issue for you?

Comment 7 Marcus Burghardt 2023-01-23 13:28:17 UTC
Patch already merged in Upstream: https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/10077

Comment 26 errata-xmlrpc 2023-05-16 08:39:41 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (scap-security-guide bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:2869

Comment 27 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-19 04:31:58 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days