On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:24 AM Trey Henefield <trey.henefi...@ultra-ats.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > I have contributed a fair ammount of content in the past and would love to > continue to do so. > > The biggest challenge Iv'e had in working with this group is the rapid number > of structural changes.
I hear you but it has been necessary and long overdue. We try to limit the pain as much as possible but there certainly have been breakages between 0.1.39 and 0.1.40. It has made a lot of my knowledge of the old SSG structure obsolete but I would still like to thank everyone who worked to make SSG easier for newcomers and cleaner for everyone. The current system is light-years ahead of the old one in terms of productivity. > Secondly, there seems to be some difference of opinions between what RedHat > feels should be implemented for a requirement versus what DISA requires to be > configured to meet a requirement. Ive had commits rejected for that very > reason. This has pretty much discouraged me from commiting any other changes. > While we still develop content to support ensuring our systems are compliant > with the DISA STIGs, it would be nice to put aside difference of opinions and > support bringing compliance to currently enforced DISA STIG requirements > within the SSG baseline. > > I think that once those two issues are resolved, you will likely see further > enhanced content being contributed. I am not 100% sure what you are referring to, links would help. Working with open source communities can be frustrating and political. I would like to think that we are "better than your average community" but I know exactly how you feel regarding having code rejected. Definitely experienced that many many times in SSG. In my experience it really helps to submit pull requests quickly and mark them WIP. That way you can get feedback early and avoid having to thrash a lot of code. And keep in mind that you can review our pull requests back and give us comments. AFAIK we have never ignored community feedback and generally try to solicit feedback for large changes either via mailing list or github. > > Best regards, > > Trey Henefield, CISSP > Senior IAVA Engineer > > Ultra Electronics > Advanced Tactical Systems, Inc. > 4101 Smith School Road > Building IV, Suite 100 > Austin, TX 78744 USA > > trey.henefi...@ultra-ats.com > Tel: +1 512 327 6795 ext. 647 > Fax: +1 512 327 8043 > Mobile: +1 512 541 6450 > > -----Original Message----- > From: open-scap-list-boun...@redhat.com <open-scap-list-boun...@redhat.com> > On Behalf Of Alexander Scheel > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:16 AM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: [Open-scap] Guide Mergers and Simplifications in SCAP Security Guide > > Greetings, everyone! > > > I'm Alex, the US-based intern working with the OpenSCAP team this summer. We > also have an intern in Brno, Milan, who has been with the team for longer. > I'm posting to highlight some of the work I've done, and how I think this > will help the OpenSCAP community at large. I’ll be focusing on the SCAP > Security Guide (SSG) project, where we host all of our compliance content. > > Part of the problems facing the OpenSCAP team is that we’re not experts with > the complete matrix of different compliance documents, Linux distributions, > or projects that we provide content for. As different individuals contribute > to SSG, they usually do so for only the projects they’re familiar with. A > direct result of this was that, over time, Debian, RHEL6, and RHEL7 content > grew increasingly fragmented despite starting out largely similar. Partly, > this was due to the complexity of writing content in XML format and using > XSLT macros; with the migration to YAML markup and Jinja2 macros, maintaining > a shared directory which supports all distributions is now easier than > separate directories. On top of this, having many independent locations for > content made it hard for individuals new to the project to find where to make > their changes. Thus, merging the guides was an important step in reducing > technical debt in SCAP Security Guide. > > Below, I outline one of the things we’ve improved this summer, with the hopes > of encouraging more individuals to contribute to the SSG project. Hopefully a > few users will be inspired to create quick PRs fixing issues you see on a > day-to-day basis. Stay tuned for a later mailing list post about additional > changes made. :) > > With the help of Martin Preisler, Gabe Alford, and everyone else, I've been > collapsing the disparate Linux guides into a shared location: > `linux_os/guide`. > This helps to improve maintainability, finding the location of rules, and > fixing any issues they have. Changes against one product will now benefit all > products: > typos, new additions, compliance with standardized language, etc. > > This means that, if anyone is carrying internal patches or tailoring files > against rhel6, debian8, or wrlinux, your changes will not apply cleanly to the > 0.1.40 release (or current master). While this causes major breakage--and you > should audit your tailoring and patches--the quality of the content > definitely improved on the whole. If you are able to upstream these, we'll be > happy to review them and incorporate what we can, which will let us help > migrate your rules in the future if we do any more reorganization. > > Together, these changes should significantly improve the contribution process > and reduce the cost of maintaining the SSG project. To compare the latest > master > (cef60dd72fae0c858e236667344ba531188ba977) to the tagged v0.1.39 release > (74e45ee0373d2c8f06dfc3fa66e6b83660cfce2a) to show the state of content: > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 > === v0.1.39 === > * rules: 441 > * checks (OVAL): 378 [85% covered] > * fixes (bash): 280 [63% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 221 [50% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 32 [7% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 33 [7% covered] > * CCEs: 423 [95% covered] > === master === > * rules: 480 > * checks (OVAL): 391 [81% covered] > * fixes (bash): 286 [59% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 237 [49% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 35 [7% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 35 [7% covered] > * CCEs: 406 [84% covered] > > Benchmark statistics for debian8: > === v0.1.39 === > Profile all: > * rules: 49 > * checks (OVAL): 45 [91% covered] > * fixes (bash): 9 [18% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 23 [46% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 9 [18% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 0 [0% covered] > * CCEs: 16 [32% covered] > === master === > Profile all: > * rules: 213 > * checks (OVAL): 88 [41% covered] > * fixes (bash): 22 [10% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 34 [15% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 12 [5% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 0 [0% covered] > * CCEs: 0 [0% covered] > > Benchmark statistics for wrlinux: > === v0.1.39 === > Profile all: > * rules: 50 > * checks (OVAL): 29 [57% covered] > * fixes (bash): 13 [26% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 10 [20% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 0 [0% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 0 [0% covered] > * CCEs: 0 [0% covered] > === master === > > Profile all: > * rules: 213 > * checks (OVAL): 55 [25% covered] > * fixes (bash): 15 [7% covered] > * fixes (ansible): 10 [4% covered] > * fixes (puppet): 2 [0% covered] > * fixes (anaconda): 0 [0% covered] > * CCEs: 0 [0% covered] > > Note that many of the rules which were added to Debian 8 and WRLinux lack > checks and remediations. Most of these do have corresponding checks for > RHEL7 though -- if you’re interested in contributing PRs to add support for > these distributions, we’re happy to review and merge them! If anyone wants > help getting started, feel free to ask. > > For more technical information about these changes, please refer to the > corresponding pull requests below, or reach out to one of us, either directly > or via the mailing list. (Friendly reminder that we lurk in the #openscap > channel on Freenode. Due to spam recently, we've restricted messaging to > users with voice mode, but we're happy to grant that to anyone if they PM one > of the operators). > > - rhel6 start: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3037 > - debian8 start: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3129 > - wrlinux start: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3153 > - rhel6 end: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3131 > - debian8 end: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3151 > - wrlinux end: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/pull/3154 > > Thanks everyone for their support, advice, and reviews! As always, we're > happy to receive feedback, issues regarding the content, or PRs helping to > improve the content. We'll do our best to review these in a timely manner and > will try and tag some issues as easy fix or help wanted if people are looking > for a place to get started. And lastly, a shout-out and thanks to all our > external contributors! > > > > > Until next time, > > Alex Scheel > > Freenode: cipherboy in #openscap > GitHub: https://github.com/cipherboy > > _______________________________________________ > Open-scap-list mailing list > Openemail@example.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-scap-list > > > Disclaimer > The information contained in this communication from > trey.henefi...@ultra-ats.com sent at 2018-08-23 11:24:17 is private and may > be legally privileged or export controlled. It is intended solely for use by > firstname.lastname@example.org and others authorized to receive it. If you are not > email@example.com you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > > _______________________________________________ > Open-scap-list mailing list > Openfirstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-scap-list -- Martin Preisler _______________________________________________ Open-scap-list mailing list Openemail@example.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-scap-list