-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 684
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
SLES-15-030730 'Record Unsuccessul Delete Attempts to Files - renameat2' #6826
SLES-15-030730 'Record Unsuccessul Delete Attempts to Files - renameat2' #6826
Conversation
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
1 similar comment
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
Hi @yarunachalam. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
...it_file_modification/audit_rules_unsuccessful_file_modification_renameat2/tests/ocp4/e2e.yml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the new rule, please see review comments.
to the same event is more efficient. See the following example: | ||
<pre>-a always,exit -F arch=b32 -S unlink,unlinkat,rename,renameat,renameat2 -F exit=-EACCES -F auid>={{{ auid }}} -F auid!=unset -F key=unsuccesful-delete</pre> | ||
|
||
template: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that this template has hardcoded a different audit rule key. It adds
-F key=access
at the end istead of
-F key=unsuccessful-delete
which is specified in your rule description.
It depends if it is a problem for you as keys can be arbitrary values, they are more for humans than for computers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vojtapolasek The key difference is not an issue. Our rule notes that the key maybe different and looking at other rules that use this template I saw that in most cases the keys in the description were not access.
Also you use CCE which is already used. It currently is in:
|
Removed renmeat2 changes
Removed renmeat2 changes
Test only applied for Red Hat not for SLE. Removed e2e.yml
Fixed cce id CCE-85726-8
thanks, cce id fixed. still working on test. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vojtapolasek I think that @yarunachalam has covered what needed to be corrected.
Thank you, now it looks good. |
@openscap-ci test this please |
@openscap-ci add to whitelist |
Changes identified: Show detailsProfile stig on sle15: Recommended tests to execute: |
Description:
Rationale:
'Record Unsuccessul Delete Attempts to Files - renameat2'