Closed 72nomada closed 2 years ago
Tester | PR commit |
---|---|
@Rebits | 92cf3fe |
OS | OS version | Deployment | Image/AMI |
---|---|---|---|
HPUX | # B.11.31 | CICD Requested | - |
OS | Package |
---|---|
HPUX | Requested in https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh-packages/issues/1881 |
Some errors were detected in new policies:
21001
check :red_circle: Bad rules indentation
Rules block should be indented one level. Currently, rules are not indented correctly in any of the new policies files `cis_hpux_11i_bastille` and `cis_hpux_11i`. Example: - Current ``` rules: - 'f:/var/opt/sec_mgmt/bastille/log/Assessment/assessment-log.config -> r:AccountSecurity.user_rc_files="N"' ``` - Expected ``` rules: - 'f:/var/opt/sec_mgmt/bastille/log/Assessment/assessment-log.config -> r:AccountSecurity.user_rc_files="N"' ```Inconsistent use of " and ''
Rules should be defined using the character `"` as surrounding character instead of `'`. The `'` should surround checks rules only in the case of using `"` in the rule syntax. This is the style used in the newest policies like `cis_ubuntu_22`. Both `cis_hpux_11i_bastille` and `cis_hpux_11i` contains this format error. Example: - Current ``` rules: - 'f:/etc/ftpd' - 'c: sh -c "ls -la /etc/ftpd | grep -e ^-.*root.*sys | grep -v total" -> r:ftpd' - 'c: sh -c "ls -la /etc/ftpd/ftpaccess | grep -e ^-.*root.*sys | grep -v total" -> r:ftpaccess' ``` - Expected ``` rules: - "f:/etc/ftpd" - 'c: sh -c "ls -la /etc/ftpd | grep -e ^-.*root.*sys | grep -v total" -> r:ftpd' - 'c: sh -c "ls -la /etc/ftpd/ftpaccess | grep -e ^-.*root.*sys | grep -v total" -> r:ftpaccess' ```
@72nomada and @DFolchA detected that 4.4
does not compile HPUX properly.
Manual testing is marked as blocked for https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/issues/15182
Generated packages for https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/pull/15157 does not compile correctly. After agent installation, the agent does not contain any daemon in the wazuh binaries directory:
# ls /var/ossec/bin
wazuh-control
# /var/ossec/bin/wazuh-control restart
/var/ossec/bin/wazuh-control[4]: /var/ossec/bin/wazuh-execd: not found.
wazuh-execd: Configuration error. Exiting
#
@DFolchA has been noticed. For now, only static testing is going to be performed.
Checks 1.1.2-1.2.10/1.3.8-1.3.14 make the policy difficult to understand
No full manual testing was performed due to some of the errors specified in the first testing were not solved. If any of the proposed suggestions does not proceed, it requires validation for the developer, @72nomada, and the @wazuh/qa. For more information review the Multiple checks from the previous testing were not fixed
check:
Updates applied.
1.1.2 - Solved 1.2.1 - Solved 1.3.5 - Solved 1.3.10 - Solved 1.3.11 - Solved 1.3.13 - Solved 1.6.1 - SCA Limitation, can't be changed 1.6.2 - Solved 1.6.8 - Solved 1.6.9 - Solved 1.6.11 - Solved 1.8.3 - Solved 1.8.4 - Solved 1.8.5 - Solved 1.9.3 - Solved
Requested changes apply in https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/pull/15157/commits/bb56b286a4cc490ad28e7e70fd3f254f5582eac5
🟢 | Solved |
All the proposed fixes and changes have been implemented in this current development, so development is approved taking into account the reported and fixed things:
There are some checks in which the remediation fields and the rules themselves are inconsistent, indicating a different remediation than the rule commands themselves. For example:
Check: Activate service. Remediation: Activate service. Rule: Check that the service is deactivated.
This is so, because the check itself recommends that the service is only activated if it is really necessary, but nevertheless it must be given as failed in the case of being enabled, assuming that the user is aware of the use of such service. In addition, there are other checks in the policy itself that would conflict, because they expect a set of services to be disabled in order to give PASSED
checks.
By this is meant, that the logical and user-safe implementation has been carried out, but that the check itself is inconsistent.
Description
Create Security Assessment Policies for HP-UX B.11.31.
The only document found is this, and it is from 2009 and for version 11i: https://www.cisecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CIS_HP-UX_11i_Benchmark_v1.5.0.pdf
There will be two different policies for the same OS, one will use the bastille tool from HP, the other one will use standard UNIX commands
Proposed checks
...
Configuration and considerations