Upstream BZ https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/issues/1542

Remediation script upstream is here: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/blob/master/shared/templates/static/bash/file_permissions_sshd_private_key.sh

Shawn would expect the permissions be 0600 or 0640 to accommodate the ssh_keys group?

(In reply to redhatrises from comment #3)
> Remediation script upstream is here:
> https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/blob/master/shared/templates/
> static/bash/file_permissions_sshd_private_key.sh
> 
> Shawn would expect the permissions be 0600 or 0640 to accommodate the
> ssh_keys group?

Haven't had a chance to look yet. Appears the group membership needs to be there. If that holds true, need to tip off DISA so they can update their content too.

From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819896:
------------

Description of problem: The /usr/libexec/openssh/ssh-keysign is setgid, not setuid as it used to be.  The group is set to ssh_keys.  In the /usr/sbin/sshd-keygen script, the keys are created with the group set to ssh_keys, but the group read bit is disabled.  Thus, only root can read the keys, and host-based authentication does not work.
......
......


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora.
2. Look at permissions on /etc/ssh/ssh_host_*key
3.
  
Actual results:
bash-4.2$ ls -l /etc/ssh/ssh_host_*key
-rw------- 1 root ssh_keys  668 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
-rw------- 1 root ssh_keys  965 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_key
-rw------- 1 root ssh_keys 1679 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key


Expected results:
bash-4.2$ ls -l /etc/ssh/ssh_host_*key
-rw-r----- 1 root ssh_keys  668 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
-rw-r----- 1 root ssh_keys  965 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_key
-rw-r----- 1 root ssh_keys 1679 May  7 15:22 /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key
------------

Since the SSH keys get generated on first boot, this won't be able to be remediated through Anaconda.

> Haven't had a chance to look yet. Appears the group membership needs to be there. If that holds true, need to tip off DISA so they can update their content too.

IMO, we should tip off DISA and fix the content. Although, DISA might have done 0600 on purpose, and they may have not wanted to allow read access to the ssh_keys group....

Fix submitted to upstream. See https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/1556

Verified for version scap-security-guide-0.1.33-5.el7.noarch
Verification performed using SSG Test Suite https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/commits/ba02d65857f02c824e18878e238ff8a9aea657c1

OLD:
scap-security-guide-0.1.30-3.el7.noarch
INFO - xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key
INFO - Script correct_value.pass.sh using profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_ospp-rhel7-server
ERROR - Scan has exited with return code 2, instead of expected 0 during stage initial
ERROR - Rule result should have been "pass", but is "fail"!
WARNING - Skipping to the next scenario
INFO - Script wrong_value.fail.sh using profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_ospp-rhel7-server
ERROR - Scan has exited with return code 2, instead of expected 0 during stage remediation
ERROR - Rule result should have been "fixed", but is "fail"!
INFO - All snapshots reverted successfully


NEW:
INFO - Logging into /home/dahaic/RH/git/upstream/dahaic/scap-security-guide/tests/logs/rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key-2017-06-21-21:36-1/test_suite.log
INFO - xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key
INFO - Script correct_value.pass.sh using profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_ospp-rhel7
INFO - Script wrong_value.fail.sh using profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_ospp-rhel7
INFO - All snapshots reverted successfully

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, 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-2017:2064