RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1287295 - [RFE] verbose mode explaining why tests failed
Summary: [RFE] verbose mode explaining why tests failed
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1140240
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openscap
Version: 6.7
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Šimon Lukašík
QA Contact: Marek Haicman
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-12-01 22:20 UTC by Karl Hastings
Modified: 2019-10-10 10:36 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: openscap-1.2.7-1.el6
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-01-18 14:23:37 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Karl Hastings 2015-12-01 22:20:58 UTC 
Description of problem:
Provide more verbose information from Openscap for why something failed or was excluded.

E.g. if I run a scan and get

Title   Ensure gpgcheck Enabled For All Yum Package Repositories
Rule    ensure_gpgcheck_never_disabled
Ident   CCE-26647-8
Result  fail

Title   Ensure Software Patches Installed
Rule    security_patches_up_to_date
Ident   CCE-27635-2
Result  notchecked

How do I know which yum config is invalid?  And why was CCE-27635-2 not checked?  (in this case it was skipped in the content profile).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
openscap-scanner = 1.0.10-3.el6

Additional info:

customer dug into the xccdf and pulled out that it does a patetern check for <ind:pattern operation="pattern match">^\s*gpgcheck\s*=\s*0\s*$</ind:pattern>  looking threough yum I can find: 
> grep gpgcheck=0 /etc/yum.repos.d/*
/etc/yum.repos.d/custom.repo:gpgcheck=0

But there should be a way for oscap to display this information.
Comment 2 Šimon Lukašík 2015-12-02 08:55:27 UTC 
Karl, we are preparing the verbose mode in upstream. This will be definitely brought to rhel customer with the next rebase.

In the meantime, please advice the customer to run:

    oscap xccdf eval

with

    --report ./myreport.html --results-arf ./myfullresults.arf.xml

options. In the detailed information is present in both files. HTML report would be much more easier to comprehend.
Comment 4 Šimon Lukašík 2015-12-15 08:44:03 UTC 
The verbose mode has been implemented in upstream. See http://www.jan-cerny.cz/2015/12/09/verbose-mode-in-openscap-1-2-7/
Comment 7 Karl Hastings 2016-01-08 16:11:42 UTC 
Marek,

Yes, that is exactly the type of data they are looking for.

The customer has said: "We are evaluting giving these results to the business but currently this would not be fit for that purpose."

They really want to provide a report to their internal customer that explains (simply) *why* the test failed, not just *that* it failed.

As mentioned in comment2 the HTML report is probably what they will want to provide to the business unit, so if the "Extended details" are in the HTML report, that would suffice.  But previously it wasn't there:

~~~
Result for Package Signature Checking is Not Disabled For Any Repos

Result: fail

Rule ID: rule-1008

Time: 2015-12-01 22:11

To ensure that signature checking is not disabled for any repos, ensure that the following line DOES NOT appear in any repo configuration files in /etc/yum.repos.d or elsewhere:

gpgcheck=0

Security identifiers

CCE-14813-0
~~~

Better would be something like:

~~~
Result for Package Signature Checking is Not Disabled For Any Repos

Result: fail

Rule ID: rule-1008

Time: 2015-12-01 22:11

This test failed because the following repo files disable Package Signature Checking in at least one repo by setting 'gpgcheck = 0':

/etc/yum.repos.d/beaker-harness.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/beaker-client.repo.disabled
/etc/yum.repos.d/rhel-source.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/beakerlib.repo.disabled
/etc/yum.repos.d/beaker.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rhel.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/qa-tools.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/rhel-debuginfo.repo
/etc/yum.repos.d/beaker-tasks.repo

Security identifiers

CCE-14813-0
~~~
Comment 11 Šimon Lukašík 2016-01-18 14:23:37 UTC 
After discussion with the team, we have decided to make this bug a dupe of bug 1140240.

Both bugs basically request more detailed information in the HTML report, that is delivered in the current update.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1140240 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.