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

ProcessMitigation ResourceID is created in an inconsistent format #179

Open
mapresto opened this issue Nov 1, 2018 · 1 comment
Open
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Milestone

Comments

@mapresto
Copy link

mapresto commented Nov 1, 2018

Describe the bug
ResourceID and InstanceName for ProcessMitigation rules for Windows 10 stig are not in the standard format.

Current output is:
[ProcessMitigation]AcroRd32.exe-V-77191::[WindowsClient]Client

Expected output would be:
[ProcessMitigation][V-77191][medium][WN10-EP-000080]::[WindowsClient]Client

To Reproduce
Create MOF based on Windows 10 composite resource. Assuming the mof file path is save to $testPath run the following:

$TestResults = Test-DSCConfiguration -ComputerName Win10Test -ReferenceConfiguration $testPath
$FullResults = $TestResults.ResourcesInDesiredState + $testResults.ResourcesNotInDesiredState
$fullResults | select ResourceID

Expected behavior
Expected output would be:
[ProcessMitigation][V-77191][medium][WN10-EP-000080]::[WindowsClient]Client

Screenshots
processmiterror

Additional context
I am using the ResourceName and/or InstanceName to determine scan results using PowerStig. For the majority of resources this holds the majority of the information that I need on the fly but for the ProcessMitigation rules, the parsing that I am using would need to be rewritten to support just these rules, and it still would not hold all of the information that I would normally gather.

@athaynes athaynes self-assigned this Nov 2, 2018
@athaynes athaynes added this to the 2.3.0.0 milestone Nov 2, 2018
@athaynes
Copy link
Contributor

athaynes commented Nov 2, 2018

@mapresto I am updating the resource call to use the standard formatting function. That being said, the rules for V-77091,95,97,101, and 103 have a duplicate key in the resource (MitigationTarget), so they get merged together. I'll need to think on this a little bit.

@athaynes athaynes mentioned this issue Nov 5, 2018
5 tasks
@athaynes athaynes modified the milestones: 2.3.0.0, 2.4.0.0 Nov 30, 2018
@athaynes athaynes added bug Something isn't working and removed In Progress labels Feb 6, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants