ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
69472
|
Thu Feb 10 19:03:56 2022 |
| Ezio Zanghellini | zanghell@chalmers.se | Info | Windows | 314-2 | ELOG problems with certificates |
Recently I have had problems with ELOG not accepting the certificates (in this case from https://letsencrypt.org/) probably due to the old version of the SSL library of the binary distribution for Windows.
I have tried to follow the instructions to set up ELOG to work with Apache but they are probably old.
I have a simple solution for the Apache installation of XAMPP, the example is for two separate logbooks using each its own ELOG service on the same server:
1. I have set up the two ELOG to run as http://my.server.example.com:8080/ and as http://my.server.example.com:8081/
2. in c:\xampp\apache\conf\httpd.conf I have enabled the following (I am not sure if all the modules are really needed but this works for me):
LoadModule proxy_module modules/mod_proxy.so
LoadModule proxy_http_module modules/mod_proxy_http.so
LoadModule headers_module modules/mod_headers.so
LoadModule proxy_html_module modules/mod_proxy_html.so
LoadModule xml2enc_module modules/mod_xml2enc.so
3. still in c:\xampp\apache\conf\httpd.conf, at the very end of the file I added the following:
ProxyRequests off
Redirect permanent /app1 https://my.server.example.com/app1/
ProxyPass /app1/ http://my.server.example.com:8080/
ProxyHTMLURLMap http://my.server.example.com:8080 /app1
Redirect permanent /app2 https://my.server.example.com/app2/
ProxyPass /app2/ http://my.server.example.com:8081/
ProxyHTMLURLMap http://my.server.example.com:8081 /app2
This way I can now connect to the two ELOG using https://my.server.example.com/app1/ and https://my.server.example.com/app2/ without troubles and no additional setting to either the configuration files of ELOG nor any need for virtual hosts, ...
I hope this might be of use.
|
69483
|
Thu Mar 3 08:26:40 2022 |
| Alessandro Petrolini | alessandro.petrolini@cern.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Vulnerability? |
Hi, I have been using elog for years at CERN.
Now I installed in my local workstation at my home inistitue
and sysadmin reported the following vulnerabilities:
- Configuration File Disclosure (CVE-2019-3992)
- Password Hash Disclosure (CVE-2019-3993)
- Use After Free (CVE-2019-3994)
- NULL Pointer Dereference (CVE-2019-3995)
- Unintended Proxy (CVE-2019-3996)
Am I doing soimething wrong?
sysadmin will not allow me to use it until it is fixed....
Any help is welcome.
|
69484
|
Thu Mar 3 16:49:40 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
The CVEs you refer to are very old and have been fixed a long time ago.
Please refer to:
https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-53
This report states that all the reported problems are fixed as of ELOG 3.1.4-283534d or later.
Note that the elog git history does not refer to these CVEs because
they were fixed before the CVE number was assigned, per "Disclosure Timeline"
in the above document. The relevant commits are listed under "Additional References".
K.O. |
69485
|
Fri Mar 4 08:51:24 2022 |
| Alessandro Petrolini | alessandro.petrolini@cern.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
Ok, many many thanks!
I will pass the info to my sysadmin.
Best Regards.
> The CVEs you refer to are very old and have been fixed a long time ago.
>
> Please refer to:
> https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-53
>
> This report states that all the reported problems are fixed as of ELOG 3.1.4-283534d or later.
>
> Note that the elog git history does not refer to these CVEs because
> they were fixed before the CVE number was assigned, per "Disclosure Timeline"
> in the above document. The relevant commits are listed under "Additional References".
>
> K.O. |
69486
|
Sun Mar 6 09:00:33 2022 |
| Alessandro Petrolini | alessandro.petrolini@cern.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
> Ok, many many thanks!
> I will pass the info to my sysadmin.
> Best Regards.
>
> > The CVEs you refer to are very old and have been fixed a long time ago.
> >
> > Please refer to:
> > https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-53
> >
> > This report states that all the reported problems are fixed as of ELOG 3.1.4-283534d or later.
> >
> > Note that the elog git history does not refer to these CVEs because
> > they were fixed before the CVE number was assigned, per "Disclosure Timeline"
> > in the above document. The relevant commits are listed under "Additional References".
> >
> > K.O.
Am I wrong that the windows executable version on the site is dated 2018? 3.1.4-2? |
69487
|
Sun Mar 6 17:33:04 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
> > > The CVEs you refer to are very old and have been fixed a long time ago.
>
> Am I wrong that the windows executable version on the site is dated 2018? 3.1.4-2?
I confirm. Windows executables at https://elog.psi.ch/elog/download/windows/
and Debian packages at https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=elog all
appear to be older than the cve fixes.
I trust Stefan is reading this thread and will do something about it. My vote would
be to remove the download link to the windows executables and ask Debian to remove
the elog package. I think they have a way for upstream developers (Stefan) to request
removal of unmaintained out-of-date insecure versions of their stuff. ROOT
was in the same situation years ago, the Debian package for ROOT was very old version,
also built incorrectly, and everybody complained to us that our stuff does
not work (midas, rootana, etc).
K.O. |
69488
|
Mon Mar 7 08:49:41 2022 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
> I trust Stefan is reading this thread and will do something about it. My vote would
> be to remove the download link to the windows executables and ask Debian to remove
> the elog package. I think they have a way for upstream developers (Stefan) to request
> removal of unmaintained out-of-date insecure versions of their stuff. ROOT
> was in the same situation years ago, the Debian package for ROOT was very old version,
> also built incorrectly, and everybody complained to us that our stuff does
> not work (midas, rootana, etc).
Yeah, I have to recompile the Windows version. Unfortunately my old Windows PC is gone, I
switched now completely to MacOSX and Linux. Probably have to borrow something from somewhere.
If anybody can compile the Windows version with the current source code I would be happy.
Stefan |
69489
|
Mon Mar 7 14:30:16 2022 |
| Daniel Pfuhl | daniel.pfuhl@medizin.uni-leipzig.de | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
>
> Yeah, I have to recompile the Windows version. Unfortunately my old Windows PC is gone, I
> switched now completely to MacOSX and Linux. Probably have to borrow something from somewhere.
> If anybody can compile the Windows version with the current source code I would be happy.
>
> Stefan
That would be most welcome!
I tried to recompile the windows version a while ago but didn't manage it.
I'm just a simple ELOG __user__ ^^
Looking forward to the new precompiled Windows version.
Thnx in advance!
daniel |