Hello all! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:40 PM Watson Sato <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:40 AM Shawn Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Thanks for starting this conversation. >> >> Why not draw a line in the sand and say the content is for a specific >> version of RHV and newer? For example RHV 4.3+. >> > Actually, that is an interesting idea. > As far as I know versions up to RHV-4.3 have been using content from > ssg-rhel7-ds.xml, as it contains RHV related profiles. > A specific RHV4 "product" for el7 may not be needed at all. > Following up on this, I have started a PR moving RHV to be el8 based: https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/pull/5352 Part of the PR consists of making applicable the relevant rules, and making not-applicable unnecessary rules, and also updating the profile's rule selection based on their applicability. During this process I noticed that RHV4 "rhvh-stig" profile was identical to RHEL7 "rhelh-stig" profile, and RHV4 "rhvh-vpp" is identical to RHEL7 "rhelh-vpp". So I wondered whether Profiles for RHV4 on el8 should also be aligned with RHEL8 "rhelh-stig"and "rhelh-vpp". To me it makes sense, and I did so in the PR. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. -- Watson Sato Security Technologies | Red Hat, Inc
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
