-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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
Remove the PAM deactivation enforcement #72
Conversation
describe sshd_config do | ||
its('UsePAM') { should eq('no') } |
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.
should we check for UsePAM
yes?
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.
Do we have reasons to do that? In my eyes if we check for UsePAM yes
, it gets to the hardening requirement, but its not a hardening requirement (at least anymore). Do I miss something?
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.
its('UsePAM') { should cmp 'yes' }
would check that pam is activated, right?
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.
yes...but why?:)
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.
Its fine with me, I am just asking. Opinion @atomic111 ?
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.
@artem-sidorenko and @chris-rock yes we can set PAM to yes and remove the check, because we are checking PasswordAuthentication = no and ChallengeResponseAuthentication = no. But we have already the sshd-29, which checks for ChallengeResponseAuthentication = no. i would recommend to remove this PAM check and renumber the rest.
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.
@atomic111 good catch, I updated the PR
General question about renumbering: are we sure we want to do this? If you use profile inheritance, renumbering will break rewrites or adaptions of each test. In general we should avoid renumbering, we should just introduce new numbers. |
@chris-rock Hm, I was not aware of inspec's profile inheritance features. I'll update the PR and remove the renumbering |
as PAM should be enabled per default on the most distros: - dev-sec/chef-ssh-hardening#96 - dev-sec/ansible-ssh-hardening#23 - dev-sec/puppet-ssh-hardening#53
done |
This feature is quite new. It is documented here: http://inspec.io/docs/reference/profiles/ and this is an example profile https://github.com/chris-rock/acme-inspec-profile. Does not use specific control ids though. |
@atomic111 I like the current adaption. If you're okay, please merge it. |
@chris-rock thanks for the hint. @artem-sidorenko thanks for removing this test |
as PAM should be enabled per default on the most distros: