Skip to content
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

Be consistent on which controls have caveat inputs for documented exceptions #39

Closed
wdower opened this issue May 7, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@wdower
Copy link
Contributor

wdower commented May 7, 2024

Some controls (see controls/SV-257803.rb) have caveats in the check text for ISSO waivers for a package being present or not present.

We should determine if this language indicates that a control should have an explicit input for that package being a documented requirement, and if it does, update all controls that include one of the caveats.

@wdower wdower self-assigned this May 7, 2024
@wdower wdower mentioned this issue May 7, 2024
Merged
@ejaronne
Copy link

Yes, but each case should be considered carefully
But, for any of the "documented with the ISSO as an operational requirement" of which I saw 48 in v1r3.

create a sensible T/F logic input like "core_dumps_documented_by_ISSO_as_operational_requirement"

If set to True, set Impact to zero (which will calculate to be Not Applicable), and set a skip message like: "This requirement is not applicable since it is documented by the ISSO as an operational requirement"

AND run the tests anyway for situational awareness.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants