Description of problem: Reading the rule description, from STIG official webpage https://www.stigviewer.com/stig/red_hat_enterprise_linux_8/2022-12-06/finding/V-230334: -------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< -------- Note: This check applies to RHEL versions 8.0 and 8.1, if the system is RHEL version 8.2 or newer, this check is not applicable. -------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< -------- The above text seems to infer that the rule "accounts_passwords_pam_faillock_interval" should not apply to RHEL8.2 and later. But scanning for STIG on a 8.6 or later system shows the rule executes. Please tell us if it's a rule bug or if it's more the checks listed to confirm compliance that do not apply to RHEL8.2 or later: -------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< -------- $ sudo grep pam_faillock.so /etc/pam.d/password-auth auth required pam_faillock.so preauth dir=/var/log/faillock silent audit deny=3 even_deny_root fail_interval=900 unlock_time=0 auth required pam_faillock.so authfail dir=/var/log/faillock unlock_time=0 account required pam_faillock.so If the "fail_interval" option is not set to "900" or less (but not "0") on the "preauth" lines with the "pam_faillock.so" module, or is missing from this line, this is a finding. $ sudo grep pam_faillock.so /etc/pam.d/system-auth ... -------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< ---------------- 8< -------- Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): scap-security-guide How reproducible: Always
Hello Renaud, this rule is a bit special - it actually covers also this STIG item: https://stigaview.com/products/rhel8/v1r9/RHEL-08-020013/ It decides what to do based on presence of Authselect, so it works for all RHEL 8 systems. I think we should include the STIGID I have posted above into the rule reference so that it does not confuse people. Would this solve the issue? Best regards, Vojta
Hello, thanks for the information, you may indeed add the stigid, I think it's more the STIG text in the rule that is confusing.
Fixed upstream: https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/10846