Bug 1287295 - [RFE] verbose mode explaining why tests failed
[RFE] verbose mode explaining why tests failed
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1140240
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openscap (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Šimon Lukašík
Marek Haicman
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-12-01 17:20 EST by Karl Hastings
Modified: 2016-03-23 09:37 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: openscap-1.2.7-1.el6
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-01-18 09:23:37 EST
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Karl Hastings 2015-12-01 17:20:58 EST
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/*

But there should be a way for oscap to display this information.
Comment 2 Šimon Lukašík 2015-12-02 03:55:27 EST
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


    --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 03:44:03 EST
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 11:11:42 EST

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:


Security identifiers


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':


Security identifiers

Comment 11 Šimon Lukašík 2016-01-18 09:23:37 EST
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.