[Ubuntu2404] Fix remediation of rule accounts_user_dot_user_ownership

[alanmcanonical]

Description:

• Use find instead globbing inside awk

Rationale:

• According to man chown, -f only suppress error msg. So replace the -f with -v (verbose) to debug
• The result of awk -F':' '{ if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) system("chown -v " $3" "$6"/.[^\.]?*") }' /etc/passwd is:

root@sec-noble-amd64:/home/am# awk -F':' '{ if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) system("chown -v " $3" "$6"/.[^\.]?*") }' /etc/passwd
chown: cannot access '/home/am/.[^.]?*': No such file or directory
failed to change ownership of '/home/am/.[^.]?*' to 1000

[openshift-ci]

Hi @alanmcanonical. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a ComplianceAsCode member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[alanmcanonical]

@dodys Please have a look.

[github-actions]

This datastream diff is auto generated by the check Compare DS/Generate Diff

Click here to see the full diff

bash remediation for rule 'xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership' differs.
--- xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership
+++ xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 
-awk -F':' '{ if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) system("chown -f " $3" "$6"/.[^\.]?*") }' /etc/passwd
+awk -F: '{if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) print $3":"$6}' /etc/passwd | while IFS=: read -r uid home; do find "$home" -maxdepth 1 -name "\.[^.]*" -exec chown -f $uid "{}" \;; done

ansible remediation for rule 'xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership' differs.
--- xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership
+++ xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_user_dot_user_ownership
@@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
 - name: Ensure interactive local users are the owners of their respective initialization
     files
-  ansible.builtin.command:
-    cmd: awk -F':' '{ if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) system("chown -f " $3" "$6"/.[^\.]?*")
-      }' /etc/passwd
+  ansible.builtin.shell:
+    cmd: 'awk -F: ''{if ($3 >= 1000 && $3 != 65534) print $3":"$6}'' /etc/passwd |
+      while IFS=: read -r uid home; do find "$home" -maxdepth 1 -name "\.[^.]*" -exec
+      chown -f $uid "{}" \;; done'
   tags:
   - CCE-86316-7
   - accounts_user_dot_user_ownership

[github-actions]

Change in Ansible shell module found.

Please consider using more suitable Ansible module than shell if possible.

[mpurg]

Is there any reason for the ? in the regex? I think it should be \.[^.]*

[alanmcanonical]

Maybe a mistake made by previous author

[alanmcanonical]

If we want to exclude double dot files we should use \.[^.]*

[github-actions]

Change in Ansible shell module found.

Please consider using more suitable Ansible module than shell if possible.

[github-actions]

Change in Ansible shell module found.

Please consider using more suitable Ansible module than shell if possible.

[alanmcanonical]

@mpurg Please review the latest changes

[github-actions]

Change in Ansible shell module found.

Please consider using more suitable Ansible module than shell if possible.

[github-actions]

Change in Ansible shell module found.

Please consider using more suitable Ansible module than shell if possible.

[alanmcanonical]

ansible.builtin.(shell|command) is /bin/sh under the hood and it's soft link to dash in Ubuntu which doesn't support process substitution syntax. Step to prove:
Run cat <(ls) on clean Ubuntu on /bin/sh, the result is:

/bin/sh: 1: Syntax error: "(" unexpected

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit bc7b620 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 61.9% (0.0% change).

View more on Code Climate.

[dodys]

@Mab879 @vojtapolasek could you take a look on this PR as it will also affect you, specifically the ansible.

[dodys]

lgtm, thanks!