-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 695
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
Defined notes for BSI SYS.1.6.A24 and A25 #12471
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Defined notes for BSI SYS.1.6.A24 and A25 #12471
Conversation
Hi @benruland. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
🤖 A k8s content image for this PR is available at: Click here to see how to deploy itIf you alread have Compliance Operator deployed: Otherwise deploy the content and operator together by checking out ComplianceAsCode/compliance-operator and: |
Code Climate has analyzed commit 6996838 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 59.5% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
/ok-to-test |
Note: At the host level, Red Hat CoreOS supports auditd, which is enabled by default. | ||
Policies for auditd can include network connections, created processes, file accesses and syscalls. | ||
Red Hat CoreOS provides many sample policies that cover all of the areas described. | ||
status: does not meet |
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.
Would a rule like https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/blob/master/applications/openshift/general/acs_sensor_exists/rule.yml be useful here?
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.
I think it is not that appropriate. The requirement could be adressed by multiple solutions, among them ACS.
However, if a different solution such as Aqua Security is used, it could still be compliant.
Description:
Added notes for two BSI SYS.1.6 controls
Rationale:
As we have multiple customers asking for a BSI profile to be included in the compliance-operator, we are contributing a profile. To provide a better review process, the individual controle are implemented as separate PRs.