Closed yavor-atanasov closed 1 week ago
Sent you a pull request: https://github.com/rocky-linux/oval/pull/19
To keep the diff at a minimum I've only sent the required source change. However, I found the instructions in the README don't actually work (I did work out how to run it by building the container). In addition, as I stated in the pull request I don't fully understand how the unit tests are meant to be run and as far as I can see they only print things on stdout without doing any assertions and they seem to contain broken imports. I'm happy to contribute to both the README and tests, but wanted first to get your feedback on that.
Hey guys, any movement here?
fixed by #19. thank you!
Using latest Rocky Linux 8/9 oval data from https://download.rockylinux.org/pub/oval
We have an in-house tool which uses Red Hat's oval data (e.g. https://access.redhat.com/security/data/oval/v2/RHEL9/rhel-9.oval.xml.bz2) to scan our systems for vulnerabilities. We'd like to move to Rocky's oval data. When attempting a scan with Rocky's ovals we get an error at the
rpmverifyfile_test
which tests that "Rocky Linux must be installed". The test is meant to check whether the system has the following filepath:/etc/rocky-release
. However the filepath attribute ofrpmverifyfile_object
for this test is empty. Here are the relevant snippets from the rocky 8 oval (the rocky 9 is the same):The
rpmverifyfile_test
definition, which points to the problematic object with refoval:org.rockylinux.rlsa:obj:20234378001
:And this is the
rpmverifyfile_state
definition, which basically checks that the filepath should match the expected pattern:And finally the problematic object:
As you can see, the
<red-def:filepath/>
tag is empty and it should contain/etc/rocky-release
. For example this is what the Red Hat equivalent oval contains for this same object: