Document URL: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/html/9.2_release_notes/bug-fixes#bug-fixes-security Section Number and Name: 8.5 SECURITY Describe the issue: X Previously, if the RuleFile configuration directive in USBGuard was set but RuleFolder was not, This phrase seemed to be other way around. Suggestions for improvement: ✔ if RuleFolder configuration directive in USBGuard was set but RuleFile was not? Additional information: According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155910 Feedback Received during the translation review session by Moriwaka-san
Hi Petr, sorry ... the articles are not important here.. What the TSE suggested is that RuleFILE and RuleFOLDER need to be swapped as follows. X if the ****RuleFile**** configuration directive in USBGuard was set but ****RuleFolder**** was not ✔ if ****RuleFolder**** configuration directive in USBGuard was set but ****RuleFile**** was not Cheers, Mie