Bug 1993822
| Summary: | content_rule_audit_basic_configuration enforces using default buffer size (8192) for audit, which isn't always suitable on busy systems [rhel-7.9.z] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Renaud Métrich <rmetrich> |
| Component: | scap-security-guide | Assignee: | Vojtech Polasek <vpolasek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Matus Marhefka <mmarhefk> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | Jan Fiala <jafiala> |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 7.9 | CC: | ggasparb, jafiala, kpfleming, mhaicman, mlysonek, peter.vreman, vpolasek, wsato |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged, ZStream |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | scap-security-guide-0.1.63-1.el7_9 | Doc Type: | Enhancement |
| Doc Text: |
.A warning message to configure Audit log buffer for large systems added to SCAP rule `audit_rules_for_ospp`
The SCAP rule `xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_audit_rules_for_ospp` now displays a performance warning on large systems where the Audit log buffer configured by this rule might be too small, and can override the custom value. The warning also describes the process to configure a larger Audit log buffer. With the release of the link:https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:6576[RHBA-2022:6576] advisory, you can keep large systems compliant and correctly set their Audit log buffer.
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-09-20 09:07:04 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
Renaud Métrich
2021-08-16 07:56:32 UTC
Hello, thank you for raising this issue. This particular rule treats the file as one huge blob, so it can't be easily customized. The idea behind the rule is to match files provided by Audit package in /usr/share/audit/sample-rules. Therefore, if we were about to add some explaining comment, I believe this would need to be coordinated with Audit developers as well, so that copying over the sample file does not make the rule fail. However, I think we could add the explanation either to the rule description or into the rule warning section related to performance, I like the later approach more. This would bee modification only to the SCAP content. It would be visible in the HTML report and in the HTML guides. Would this be feasible? Yes sure, as long as there is something that would help the customers to understand what's wrong, I'll be happy. I have confirmed that the solution works. However, be ware that files starting with letters are processed even after files which start with numbers. So if you have file: 99-my_config.rules with your custom configuration and there will be file audit.rules with a different -b it will overide your custom configuration. Confirming also that it works for me, i now define the '-b <value>' in my 40-local.rules file and it gets applied Having a better documentation guidance here on the idea of using the standard files verbatim and then have local customizations in a file like 40-local.rules or 90-my_config.rules is ok. It shall be at least before 99-finalize that is also part of the standard set of audit example files. I believe I fixed it upstream, there is a new warning section: https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/7909 Fixed upstream: https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/9303 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-2022:6576 |