Bug 2228696

Summary:	RuleFile configuration directive in USBGuard was set but RuleFolder was not → RuleFolder was set but RuleFile was not
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Reporter:	Mie Yamamoto <myamamot>
Component:	doc-Release_Notes-9-en-US	Assignee:	Gabi Fialová <gfialova>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	RHEL DPM <rhel-docs>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:	Petr Hybl <phybl>
Priority:	medium
Version:	9.2	CC:	alakatos, lkuprova, phybl, radrao, rhel-docs
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	Documentation
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-08-10 07:16:23 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:

Description Mie Yamamoto 2023-08-03 06:17:09 UTC

Document URL: 
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/html/9.2_release_notes/bug-fixes#bug-fixes-security

Section Number and Name: 8.5 SECURITY

Describe the issue: 
X Previously, if the RuleFile configuration directive in USBGuard was set but RuleFolder was not,

This phrase seemed to be other way around.


Suggestions for improvement: 

✔ if RuleFolder configuration directive in USBGuard was set but RuleFile was not?

Additional information: 
According to 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155910 

Feedback Received during the translation review session by Moriwaka-san

Comment 5 Mie Yamamoto 2023-08-08 09:09:31 UTC

Hi Petr,


sorry ... the articles are not important here..
What the TSE suggested is that RuleFILE and RuleFOLDER need to be swapped as follows.


X if the ****RuleFile**** configuration directive in USBGuard was set but ****RuleFolder**** was not

✔ if ****RuleFolder**** configuration directive in USBGuard was set but ****RuleFile**** was not

Cheers,
Mie