-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
Debian Linux 11 SCA policy - checks 1.3 to 1.9 #3827
Comments
Tester reviewTesting environment
Tested packages
Status |
Testing results
1.3.1 🔴
Unexpected references. No references specified in the CIS policy for this check
Rules details
1.3.2 🔴
Wrong
Rules details
1.4.1 🔴🔴 Unepxected value:
Replaced
No references for this check according to policy file
Condition should be all instead of any Rules details
1.4.2 🔴
Do not include additional information section.
Rules details
1.4.3 🔴
This rule does no correspond with the CIS policy. CIS audit rules expects to specify a password for root user. In case of leaving this password If no root password is set, then regardless of if the system is set to prompt for a password for Single User Mode or not it will just load root access. Rules details
1.5.1Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.5.2 🟢
Rules details
1.5.3 🔴🔴 : Unexpected field
No mitre values expected for this check
Rules details
1.5.4 🔴
Expected:
Rules details
1.6.1.1 🔴
There are no references in the policy
Rules details
1.6.1.2 🔴
No expected references for this check in the policy
Rule does not take into account tabulations, making it mark the check as pass for invalid cases.
Rules details
1.6.1.3 🔴
No expected references for this check
Rules details
1.5.4 🔴
No references expected for this check
Rules details
1.7.1 🔴
No references expected for this check
Should we include Linux instead of Ubuntu in the regex? Rules details
1.7.2 🔴
No references for this check
Should we include Linux instead of Ubuntu in the regex? Rules details
1.7.3 🔴
No references expected for this check
Should we include Linux instead of Ubuntu in the regex? Rules details
1.7.4 🔴🔴 : Unexpected default value field.
No expected references for this rule.
It does not take into account the case in which the file does not exists (safe configuration).
Rules details
1.7.5 🔴🔴 Unexpected field
No expected reference for this check
Rules details
1.7.6 🔴🔴 Unexpected
No expected referenced for this check
Rules details
1.8.1 🔴
Check does not take into account this cases:
It should be marked as passed Rules details
1.8.2 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.3 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.4 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.5 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.6 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.7 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.8 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.9 ⚫Not implemented. Expected due to SCA limitations 1.8.10 🟡
Marked as not applicable if gdm3 is not installed. Rules details
1.9 🟢
Rules details
|
1.3.1 🔴
1.3.2 🔴
1.4.1 🔴
1.4.2 🔴
1.4.3 🔴
1.5.3 🔴
1.5.4 🔴
1.6.1.1 🔴
1.6.1.2 🔴
1.6.1.3 🔴
1.7.1 🔴
1.7.2 🔴
1.7.3 🔴
1.7.4 🔴
1.7.5 🔴
1.7.6 🔴
1.8.1 🔴
1.8.10 🟡
|
Testing results
1.3.1 🟢
1.3.2 🟢
1.4.1 🟢
1.4.2 🟢
1.4.3 🟢
1.4.3 🟢
1.5.3 🟢
1.5.4 🟢
1.6.1.1 🟢
1.6.1.2 🟢
1.6.1.3 🟢
1.6.1.3 🟢
1.7.1 🟢
1.7.2 🟢
1.7.4 🔴Default value field is still defined in the check. 1.7.5 🟢
1.7.6 🟢
1.8.1 🟢
1.8.10 🟢
|
1.7.4 🔴 |
Testing results
1.3.2 🔴
|
1.3.2 - Solved |
Testing results
1.3.2 🟢Rules: 🟢 |
Closing conclusion 👍🏼Suggested changes were implemented correctly. Everything seems to work as expected |
Threat Intel - @olulekew7
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: