accounts_umask_etc_bashrc: depend on bash being installed

[candrews]

Description:

accounts_umask_etc_bashrc: depend on bash being installed

Rationale:

/etc/bashrc is only used if bash is installed.

[openshift-ci]

Hi @candrews. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a ComplianceAsCode member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[github-actions]

Start a new ephemeral environment with changes proposed in this pull request:

rhel8 (from CTF) Environment (using Fedora as testing environment)

Fedora Testing Environment

Oracle Linux 8 Environment

[github-actions]

This datastream diff is auto generated by the check Compare DS/Generate Diff

Click here to see the full diff

bash remediation for rule 'xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc' differs.
--- xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
+++ xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+# Remediation is applicable only in certain platforms
+if rpm --quiet -q bash; then
 
 var_accounts_user_umask=''
 
@@ -11,3 +13,7 @@
 if ! [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
     echo "umask $var_accounts_user_umask" >> /etc/bashrc
 fi
+
+else
+    >&2 echo 'Remediation is not applicable, nothing was done'
+fi

ansible remediation for rule 'xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc' differs.
--- xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
+++ xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
@@ -1,3 +1,18 @@
+- name: Gather the package facts
+  package_facts:
+    manager: auto
+  tags:
+  - CCE-81036-6
+  - DISA-STIG-RHEL-08-020353
+  - NIST-800-53-AC-6(1)
+  - NIST-800-53-CM-6(a)
+  - PCI-DSSv4-8.6.1
+  - accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
+  - low_complexity
+  - low_disruption
+  - medium_severity
+  - no_reboot_needed
+  - restrict_strategy
 - name: XCCDF Value var_accounts_user_umask # promote to variable
   set_fact:
     var_accounts_user_umask: !!str 
@@ -12,6 +27,7 @@
   check_mode: true
   changed_when: false
   register: umask_replace
+  when: '"bash" in ansible_facts.packages'
   tags:
   - CCE-81036-6
   - DISA-STIG-RHEL-08-020353
@@ -30,7 +46,9 @@
     path: /etc/bashrc
     regexp: ^(\s*)umask(\s+).*
     replace: \g<1>umask\g<2>{{ var_accounts_user_umask }}
-  when: umask_replace.found > 0
+  when:
+  - '"bash" in ansible_facts.packages'
+  - umask_replace.found > 0
   tags:
   - CCE-81036-6
   - DISA-STIG-RHEL-08-020353
@@ -49,7 +67,9 @@
     create: true
     path: /etc/bashrc
     line: umask {{ var_accounts_user_umask }}
-  when: umask_replace.found == 0
+  when:
+  - '"bash" in ansible_facts.packages'
+  - umask_replace.found == 0
   tags:
   - CCE-81036-6
   - DISA-STIG-RHEL-08-020353

Platform has been changed for rule 'xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc'
--- xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
+++ xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_umask_etc_bashrc
@@ -1 +1 @@
-
+oval:ssg-package_bash:def:1

[Mab879]

Thanks for the PR! Please take look at the CI failures as they do appear to be valid (at least the GitHub Actions, save Fedora rawhide). Let me know any help.

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit 25652b2 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 53.2% (0.0% change).

View more on Code Climate.

[candrews]

Thanks for the PR! Please take look at the CI failures as they do appear to be valid (at least the GitHub Actions, save Fedora rawhide). Let me know any help.

I believe I have addressed that problem. Thank you for pointing it out!

[mildas]

/packit retest-failed

[mildas]

/packit retest-failed

[jan-cerny]

/packit retest-failed

[jan-cerny]

/packit retest-failed

review addressed, the CI passes