Re: [scap_interest] SCE XCCDF

"Chandrashekhar B" <bchandra@secpod.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=pXlJl5=BC=secpod.com=bchandra@srs.bis7.eu.blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2213321F8602; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:14:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XI4upTftZi7a; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp09.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (smtp09.bis7.eu.blackberry.com [178.239.85.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DD321F8633; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from b3.c10.bise7.blackberry ([192.168.0.103]) by srs.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q1OHENoQ021584; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:14:23 GMT
Received: from 172.18.203.195 (cmp25.c10.bise7.blackberry [172.18.203.195]) by b3.c10.bise7.blackberry (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q1OHEJkg002719; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:14:19 GMT
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 66580539
Message-ID: <66580539-1330103658-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-988498293-@b28.c10.bise7.blackberry>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: Normal
References: <4CDD66FA-4282-4DFC-8EB8-2E005E978368@c3isecurity.com> <4F47B2B9.4030706@joval.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F47B2B9.4030706@joval.org>
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
To: "David Solin" <david@joval.org>, scap_interest-bounces@ietf.org, scap_interest@ietf.org
From: "Chandrashekhar B" <bchandra@secpod.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:14:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] SCE XCCDF
X-BeenThere: scap_interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bchandra@secpod.com
List-Id: "Discussion List for IETFers interested in the Security Content Automation Protocol \(SCAP\)." <scap_interest.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scap_interest>
List-Post: <mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:18:01 -0000

This is an alternative option to cases where OVAL cannot be used to as a checking language. But there will always be confusion when to use what as the capabilities of OVAL improve. There is certainly one use case, to develop remote checks to determine vulnerabilities, assuming OVAL is not meant for that. Any effort to standardize this interface is good.

Thanks,
Chandra.
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

-----Original Message-----
From: David Solin <david@joval.org>;
Sender: scap_interest-bounces@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:54:33 
To: <scap_interest@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] SCE XCCDF

_______________________________________________
scap_interest mailing list
scap_interest@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest