Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Report tests and their relationship to CIS compliance #159

Closed
garretfick opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Report tests and their relationship to CIS compliance #159

garretfick opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@garretfick
Copy link
Contributor

As a user, viewing the output from a cloudsploit, I would like to be able to see if rules violate particular compliance standards, such as CIS, so that I can report compliance levels, focus on rules I care most about and ignore rules I care less about.

I'm creating this issue because I'm willing to implement annotating rules with compliance information, if that would desirable to the maintainers here. If that isn't of interest, then I would avoid this).

I see two ways to achieve this:
a. add new items in the "compliance" member
b. add IDs to rules (plugins) and and externalize the compliance information

My proposal is (b) because it would give a way for anyone to add compliance information, including industry/domain specific rules without modifying this repo. Then assuming (b)

  1. For each rule, add a new unique ID attribute, for example elbHttpsOnly rule ID would be "elb-https-only" (snake case)
  2. Create a new "compliance" set that maps rule names to a data structure that describes how the rule maps to the compliance rule.
@garretfick
Copy link
Contributor Author

Small update. I started looking at this today and found that there are in IDs (there are a number of large maps). With that, I was able to get a working solution taking approach (b) and adding CIS rules for CIS. I would like to know if there if there is interest in such a change.

@garretfick
Copy link
Contributor Author

garretfick commented Mar 11, 2019

This request is now a pull request
#160
We are happy and active to integrate additional changes into that branch if it helps other projects

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant