> On Nov 8, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Steinke, Leland J Sr CTR DISA FSO (US)" 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Shawn,
> 
> It's not an OVAL requirement; it's an SCAP requirement.  Section 3.3 of NIST 
> SP 800-126r2, the SCAP 1.2 specification, includes the following:
> 
> 1. For compliance class definitions:
>  b. Definitions that are directly or indirectly extended SHALL be limited to 
> inventory and
> compliance classes.
> 
> The SSG author of these particular checks excluded the inventory class, which 
> left only the compliance class.
> 
> 


Makes sense, and thanks for the 800-126 reference!

Ack





> Thanks,
> Leland
> --
> Leland Steinke, Security+
> DISA FSO Technical Support Contractor
> tapestry technologies, Inc
> 717-267-5797 (DSN 570)
> [email protected] (gov't)
> [email protected] (com'l)
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:scap-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Shawn Wells
>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:18 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] set class=compliance for x86-bitness definitions
>> 
>> On 11/6/13, 9:50 AM, Steinke, Leland J Sr CTR DISA FSO (US) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    The NIST SCAP Content Validation Tool threw errors on the
>> system_info_architecture_x86* definitions (requirement ID 208).  This
>> patch corrects the errors.
>> 
>> 
>>    Regards,
>>    --
>>    Leland Steinke, Security+
>>    DISA FSO Technical Support Contractor
>>    tapestry technologies, Inc
>>    717-267-5797 (DSN 570)
>>    [email protected] (gov't)
>>    [email protected] (com'l)
>> 
>>    ---
>>      .../input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86.xml  |    2 +-
>>      .../checks/system_info_architecture_x86_64.xml     |    2 +-
>>      2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>>    diff --git a/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86.xml
>>    b/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86.xml
>>    index f05260a..393c4d6 100644
>>    --- a/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86.xml
>>    +++ b/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86.xml
>>    @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>      <def-group>
>>    -  <definition class="miscellaneous"
>> id="system_info_architecture_x86"
>>    +  <definition class="compliance"
>> id="system_info_architecture_x86"
>>        version="1">
>>          <!-- Note that this does not meet requirements for
>> class=inventory as
>>               that only tests for patches per 5.10.1 Revision 1 -->
>>    diff --git
>> a/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86_64.xml
>>    b/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86_64.xml
>>    index d4e681f..08481b5 100644
>>    --- a/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86_64.xml
>>    +++ b/RHEL6/input/checks/system_info_architecture_x86_64.xml
>>    @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>      <def-group>
>>    -  <definition class="miscellaneous"
>> id="system_info_architecture_x86_64"
>>    +  <definition class="compliance"
>> id="system_info_architecture_x86_64"
>>        version="1">
>>          <!-- Note that this does not meet requirements for
>> class=inventory as
>>               that only tests for patches per 5.10.1 Revision 1 -->
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is an error after reviewing the OVAL spec:
>> http://oval.mitre.org/language/version5.10/ovaldefinition/documentation
>> /oval-common-schema.html#ClassEnumeration
>> 
>> - Compliance definitions are meant to describe "the state of a machine
>> when in compliance with a specific policy."
>> - Miscellaneous definitions are used "to categorize a definition that
>> doesn't fit into one of the other four classes," with the other four
>> being compliance, inventory, patch, and vulnerability.
>> 
>> Since the system_info_architecture_x86* checks are called from other
>> OVAL checks, such as audit_*, to test system architecture (versus
>> testing for the compliance of being a specific architecture), the class
>> definition of miscellaneous seems appropriate.
>> 
>> Or am I interpreting the spec incorrectly (....which is totally
>> possible)?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

Reply via email to