RHEL 9 System Administrator (SA) and/or information system security officer (ISSO) (at a minimum) must be alerted of an audit processing failure event.
Overview
| Finding ID | Version | Rule ID | IA Controls | Severity |
| V-258163 | RHEL-09-653070 | SV-258163r958424_rule | CCI-000139 | medium |
| Description | ||||
| It is critical for the appropriate personnel to be aware if a system is at risk of failing to process audit logs as required. Without this notification, the security personnel may be unaware of an impending failure of the audit capability, and system operation may be adversely affected. Audit processing failures include software/hardware errors, failures in the audit capturing mechanisms, and audit storage capacity being reached or exceeded. This requirement applies to each audit data storage repository (i.e., distinct information system component where audit records are stored), the centralized audit storage capacity of organizations (i.e., all audit data storage repositories combined), or both. Satisfies: SRG-OS-000046-GPOS-00022, SRG-OS-000343-GPOS-00134 | ||||
| STIG | Date | |||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 Security Technical Implementation Guide | 2025-05-14 | |||
Related Frameworks
2 mappings across 4 frameworks
Related Frameworks
SCF0 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 3 hops (2) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- SCF Secure Traceability Relationship Mapping (STRM)2026.2equal to
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- SCF Secure Traceability Relationship Mapping (STRM)2026.2equal to
NIST 800-530 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 2 hops (23) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R1our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R1intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R1our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R1intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
+13 more (top 10 by confidence shown)
NIST 800-1710 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 3 hops (1) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
3.3.4
1.00
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2, Appendix DRev 2 (Feb 2020, errata Jan 2021)equal to(normalised)
CCI2 mappings
CCI-000139
1.00
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
CCI-001855
1.00
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
Details
Check Text (C-258163r958424_chk)
Verify that RHEL 9 is configured to notify the SA and/or ISSO (at a minimum) in the event of an audit processing failure with the following command:
$ sudo grep action_mail_acct /etc/audit/auditd.conf
action_mail_acct = root
If the value of the "action_mail_acct" keyword is not set to "root" and/or other accounts for security personnel, the "action_mail_acct" keyword is missing, or the retuned line is commented out, ask the SA to indicate how they and the ISSO are notified of an audit process failure. If there is no evidence of the proper personnel being notified of an audit processing failure, this is a finding.
Fix Text (F-61828r926475_fix)
Configure "auditd" service to notify the SA and ISSO in the event of an audit processing failure.
Edit the following line in "/etc/audit/auditd.conf" to ensure that administrators are notified via email for those situations:
action_mail_acct = root
The audit daemon must be restarted for changes to take effect.