SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

September 2019

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:09:28 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
This is unexpected behavior.  We should probably trace down the cause 
and get something opened upstream.

Pat

On 9/12/19 5:26 PM, Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) wrote:
> So, here I am, patching up scap-security-guide for our rebranding. Slight edit to my patch, no big deal, rpmbuild comes out clean. But when I go to pick a security profile during install, or go to pick a profile in scap-workbench (or output from oscap info), I only see "Standard System Security Profile for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7" and "PCI-DSS v3.2.1 Control Baseline for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7", rather than the 10 or so that I got in 7.6.
>
> That's odd. Usually, I get either nothing, or everything.
>
> Wonder what a base SL 7.7 does?
>
> Huh. The anaconda Security Profile spoke gives me nothing to choose.
>
> Install, add scap-workbench and dependencies, bring it up, I get the same 2 profiles as ours, at least, so it's not just me.
>
> Yum downgrade to the 7.6 package (0.1.40-12.sl7) and I see all the profiles I expect.
>
> The last CentOS update to 7.6.1810 I have is 0.1.40, so probably not worth checking at this point.
>
> So, ultimately, is this condition expected/correct, or do we have upstream bugs to work out and report?
>
> (Mostly I'm trying to determine how much more effort I need to put into this. At this moment our 0.1.40-12.distro7 version will probably be put into our 7.7...)
>
>

-- 
Pat Riehecky

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
www.fnal.gov
www.scientificlinux.org

ATOM RSS1 RSS2