Hello Team,
One of our customer raised concern that -- The rule going wrong are: xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_pub_key
On the customer's system, the correct permissions seen -- Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.5 (Maipo) openssh-server-7.4p1-16.el7.x86_64 openscap-1.2.16-6.el7.x86_64
- 640 for public key files (*.pub) - 600 for private key files (*_key)
Output of ls –l /etc/ssh -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 581843 Nov 24 2017 moduli -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2276 Nov 24 2017 ssh_config -rw-------. 1 root root 4026 Sep 4 14:20 sshd_config -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 241 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 162 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key.pub -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 1704 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 382 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key.pub -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2548 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_known_hosts
Please find attached screenshot and suggest.
Warm Regards, Dushyant Uge Red Hat Global Support
The scan fails because permissions should be 0640 for the private key. If they are not set to 0640, this prevents sshd from generating keys.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Dushyant Uge duge@redhat.com wrote:
Hello Team,
One of our customer raised concern that -- The rule going wrong are: xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_pub_key
On the customer's system, the correct permissions seen -- Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.5 (Maipo) openssh-server-7.4p1-16.el7.x86_64 openscap-1.2.16-6.el7.x86_64
- 640 for public key files (*.pub)
- 600 for private key files (*_key)
Output of ls –l /etc/ssh -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 581843 Nov 24 2017 moduli -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2276 Nov 24 2017 ssh_config -rw-------. 1 root root 4026 Sep 4 14:20 sshd_config -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 241 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 162 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key.pub -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 1704 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 382 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key.pub -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2548 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_known_hosts
Please find attached screenshot and suggest.
Warm Regards, Dushyant Uge Red Hat Global Support
scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists. fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@ lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap- security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org
Ok, there’s an inconsistency then. The DISA STIG says that the private keys need to be 0600. Looks like they set permissions to the DISA version of the rule, but are scanning the SSG version of the rule.
Can you provide a “proof of concept” that shows the key generation failing if the permissions are set to 0600 so I have something in my back pocket to show our customer?
Tom A.
From: Gabe Alford redhatrises@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:44 AM To: SCAP Security Guide scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: False positive message for sshd key file permission
The scan fails because permissions should be 0640 for the private key. If they are not set to 0640, this prevents sshd from generating keys.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Dushyant Uge <duge@redhat.commailto:duge@redhat.com> wrote:
Hello Team,
One of our customer raised concern that --
The rule going wrong are: xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_private_key xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_file_permissions_sshd_pub_key
On the customer's system, the correct permissions seen --
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.5 (Maipo)
openssh-server-7.4p1-16.el7.x86_64
openscap-1.2.16-6.el7.x86_64
- 640 for public key files (*.pub) - 600 for private key files (*_key)
Output of ls –l /etc/ssh -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 581843 Nov 24 2017 moduli -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2276 Nov 24 2017 ssh_config -rw-------. 1 root root 4026 Sep 4 14:20 sshd_config -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 241 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 162 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_ecdsa_key.pub -rw-------. 1 root ssh_keys 1704 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 382 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_host_rsa_key.pub -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2548 Sep 4 14:20 ssh_known_hosts
Please find attached screenshot and suggest.
Warm Regards,
Dushyant Uge
Red Hat Global Support
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...
On 9/20/18 10:52 AM, Albrecht, Thomas C wrote:
Ok, there’s an inconsistency then. The DISA STIG says that the private keys need to be 0600. Looks like they set permissions to the DISA version of the rule, but are scanning the SSG version of the rule.
Can you provide a “proof of concept” that shows the key generation failing if the permissions are set to 0600 so I have something in my back pocket to show our customer?
It's a known issue in the DISA content. We let them know about it a few years ago now. Have been told a fix is making it's way through their release processes.
Thank you all for your responses.
@Albrecht, Thomas C
Yes, the customer said --
We are using the profile DISA STIG for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 based on ssg-rhel7-ds security.xml as found on https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/releases/download/v0.1.40/sc... and tried with the default openscap scanner from the RHEL 7.5 ISO as well as the latest version available on the redhat site (1.2.16.8.el7_5).
Warm Regards, Dushyant Uge Red Hat Global Support
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Shawn Wells shawn@redhat.com wrote:
On 9/20/18 10:52 AM, Albrecht, Thomas C wrote:
Ok, there’s an inconsistency then. The DISA STIG says that the private keys need to be 0600. Looks like they set permissions to the DISA version of the rule, but are scanning the SSG version of the rule.
Can you provide a “proof of concept” that shows the key generation failing if the permissions are set to 0600 so I have something in my back pocket to show our customer?
It's a known issue in the DISA content. We let them know about it a few years ago now. Have been told a fix is making it's way through their release processes.
scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists. fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@ lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap- security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org
Hello,
@Shawn Wells swells@redhat.com you are right and I fixed our content, see https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/3362 for more details. Is it okay or should we stay with 0600 until DISA fixes it in their content?
Best Regards, Matus
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM Dushyant Uge duge@redhat.com wrote:
Thank you all for your responses.
@Albrecht, Thomas C
Yes, the customer said --
We are using the profile DISA STIG for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 based on ssg-rhel7-ds security.xml as found on https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/releases/download/v0.1.40/sc... and tried with the default openscap scanner from the RHEL 7.5 ISO as well as the latest version available on the redhat site (1.2.16.8.el7_5).
Warm Regards, Dushyant Uge Red Hat Global Support
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Shawn Wells shawn@redhat.com wrote:
On 9/20/18 10:52 AM, Albrecht, Thomas C wrote:
Ok, there’s an inconsistency then. The DISA STIG says that the private keys need to be 0600. Looks like they set permissions to the DISA version of the rule, but are scanning the SSG version of the rule.
Can you provide a “proof of concept” that shows the key generation failing if the permissions are set to 0600 so I have something in my back pocket to show our customer?
It's a known issue in the DISA content. We let them know about it a few years ago now. Have been told a fix is making it's way through their release processes.
scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...
scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...
I’d leave it, since something seems to revert the permissions later back to 0640. (Probably a package update, but I haven’t researched it yet.).
Tom A.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Matus Marhefka <mmarhefk@redhat.commailto:mmarhefk@redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
@Shawn Wellsmailto:swells@redhat.com you are right and I fixed our content, see https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/3362 for more details. Is it okay or should we stay with 0600 until DISA fixes it in their content?
Best Regards, Matus
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM Dushyant Uge <duge@redhat.commailto:duge@redhat.com> wrote: Thank you all for your responses.
@Albrecht, Thomas C
Yes, the customer said --
We are using the profile DISA STIG for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 based on ssg-rhel7-ds security.xml as found on https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide/releases/download/v0.1.40/sc... and tried with the default openscap scanner from the RHEL 7.5 ISO as well as the latest version available on the redhat site (1.2.16.8.el7_5).
Warm Regards, Dushyant Uge Red Hat Global Support
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Shawn Wells <shawn@redhat.commailto:shawn@redhat.com> wrote:
On 9/20/18 10:52 AM, Albrecht, Thomas C wrote: Ok, there’s an inconsistency then. The DISA STIG says that the private keys need to be 0600. Looks like they set permissions to the DISA version of the rule, but are scanning the SSG version of the rule. Can you provide a “proof of concept” that shows the key generation failing if the permissions are set to 0600 so I have something in my back pocket to show our customer?
It's a known issue in the DISA content. We let them know about it a few years ago now. Have been told a fix is making it's way through their release processes.
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor... _______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.orgmailto:scap-security-guide-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedor...
On 9/25/18 8:45 AM, Albrecht, Thomas C wrote:
I’d leave it, since something seems to revert the permissions later back to 0640. (Probably a package update, but I haven’t researched it yet.).
+1, agree with Tom.
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org