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

Add recommendations to compliance findings #2567

Open
zcrt opened this issue Feb 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Add recommendations to compliance findings #2567

zcrt opened this issue Feb 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Milestone

Comments

@zcrt
Copy link
Contributor

zcrt commented Feb 27, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Items such as "The firewall may be configured in a riskful manner." are too vague.

image

Describe the solution you'd like
The kat_finding_types.json already includes recommendations. These could be included in the findings. Alternatively, the appendix could contain detailed information in how a conclusion was drawn.

@underdarknl
Copy link
Contributor

#2569
this PR adds more details around our own findings. If you have a specific list of findings that still need more recomendations or sources, let us know.

@underdarknl underdarknl added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Feb 29, 2024
@underdarknl underdarknl added this to the OpenKAT v1.16 milestone Feb 29, 2024
@underdarknl underdarknl moved this to Needs refinement in KAT - Reports Feb 29, 2024
@underdarknl underdarknl added this to KAT Feb 29, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Incoming features / Need assessment in KAT Feb 29, 2024
@zcrt
Copy link
Contributor Author

zcrt commented Feb 29, 2024

The issue here is not only the recommendations from the database (great to see those being improved :D). The example from the image about the firewall, actually has already a recommendation, it is just not available in the report

@stephanie0x00
Copy link
Contributor

stephanie0x00 commented Mar 12, 2024

To make it more clear what we are talking about I've included the updated findings database for the firewall finding below.
@zcrt If I understand you correctly what you would like to see an additional column added to the table as shown in your screenshot, with contains the contents of the value 'recommendation' as shown below. Is that correct?

If we were to add this column, that would raise the question 'What ports were identified to be open', so personally I'd expect those to be available somewhere too. @noamblitz any idea how feasible it is to add a 'proof'-like column inthere as well? I can expect the report will become either messy, or it is technically difficult to currently add this data.

   "KAT-UNCOMMON-OPEN-PORT": {
        "description": "The firewall may be configured in a riskful manner.",
        "source": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers",
        "risk": "medium",
        "impact": "Uncommon ports are sometimes overlooked and may become unwanted entry points for attackers into an organisations network.",
        "recommendation": "Manually validate whether this port should be open."
    },

@noamblitz
Copy link
Contributor

You can already add "proof": "..." (some finding types already have it)! It is not hard to add that to the report!

@zcrt
Copy link
Contributor Author

zcrt commented Apr 3, 2024

In general: the vulnerabilities in the report take the approach of unfolding a vulnerability for more details. I can imagine that could be a solution here to, to incorporate the extra available data.

In the case of the open port; I do not think these kind of findings should exist in this chapter, since it is also clear from the Open Ports report, where it is explicitly defined which port we are talking about.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
Status: Incoming features / Need assessment
Status: Needs refinement
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants