Question on the tables VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM and VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E

[Former Member]

Hi experts,

During migration from 5.3 to 10.1 for comparing the rule sets I have downloaded the
tables VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM and VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E from GRC5.3 and I see 22K+
records in VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM while there are 1000+ records in the table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E.
When I compared my Functions to the records from the first table, they do match with auth object and values
and I am wondering what the entries are for in the second table. I am aware that
the table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E provides an extra column SEQUENCE which might be
the manual changes count on the functions. Can I ignore the table entries from VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E
when I migrate the rule set into GRC10.1? After migrating the rule set into
GRC10.1, all functions look good except Auditor’s requirement to explain the
differences between these 2 database tables. Based on my observation, table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E
can be ignored during the migration since functions match from 5.3 to 10.1. Please
correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,

Bhanu

[alessandr0 · Accepted solution]

Dear Bhanu,

table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E contains the manual changes that have been done. As an example, changes on permission objects you have done are stored in table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E and not in VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Alessandro

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Alessandro,

Thanks for the insight. During migration, do we have to worry about the entries in this table VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM_E? After migration, when I compare the functions they look same in 5.3 and 10.1 but my question is can we ignore the entries in that table?

Thanks!

[alessandr0 · Accepted solution]

Bhanu,

you have to take care about these entries as these represent the changes you have made in your rule set. Therefore take them into account.

Regards,

Alessandro

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Alessandro,

Thnaks, as I understand the table seems to be a reference for manual changes but migration seems to be taking care of all the changes done for functions. Thanks much for your response, closing the thread.

Bhanu