Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 43 of 806  Not logged in ELOG logo
New entries since:Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970
IDdown Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  69527   Fri May 6 21:12:11 2022 Warning Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caInfoLinuxallPDF preview special steps to enable
Ubuntu LTS 20.04 and others have elog PDF preview disabled by default. To enable,
please follow these steps, see https://daq00.triumf.ca/DaqWiki/index.php/Ubuntu#Enable_elog_PDF_preview

Enable elog PDF preview
see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52998331/imagemagick-security-policy-pdf-blocking-conversion

xemacs -nw /etc/ImageMagick-6/policy.xml
remove this section at the end:
<!-- disable ghostscript format types -->
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS2" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS3" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="EPS" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PDF" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="XPS" />

K.O.
  69525   Thu May 5 11:14:20 2022 Question Antonio Bulgheroniantonio.bulgheroni@gmail.comQuestionWindows3.1.4elog root path

Dear all, 

I have a question for you. On my elog server I have plenty of images not included in any logbook entry, but that nevertheless I would the user to have access to that via the browser. In order words, I would like to have a link like this https://myelog/my_pics_folder/my_pic.png

I have realized that if I put my_pics_folder in the script folder, then it works as I wanted, but I strongly doubt this is the right position. If I put in the resources folder, it is not found and the elogd displays a message saying that my_pics_folder is not a valid logbook.

Do you have any suggestions for this problem? 

 

Thanks in advance and enjoy your day!

toto

  69524   Wed Apr 27 19:36:25 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: Vulnerability?
> next is to request removal of ubuntu package.

contacted ubuntu security team, got very quick response.

they noted our request and informed us that ubuntu cannot remove packages from existing releases.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elog/+bug/1970480

K.O.
  69523   Tue Apr 26 18:03:03 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fhistory of long-removed freebsd package, Re: Vulnerability?
> > > > debian package still outdated?

the freebsd elog package was removed back in 2014 during
a purge of "not staged" packages. Originally submitted
in 2006, went through at least two maintainers.

https://www.freshports.org/www/elog/

K.O.
  69522   Tue Apr 26 17:39:49 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: Vulnerability?
> > > debian package still outdated?
> removed from debian-unstable
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/elog
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/1320035/removed-313-1-1-from-unstable/

contacted security@debian.org and they requested removal from the next buster/bullseye point releases:

https://bugs.debian.org/1010196
https://bugs.debian.org/1010197

next is to request removal of ubuntu package.

K.O.
  69521   Sat Apr 23 18:05:57 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: 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.

I should better capture these "additional references" and the "disclosure timeline"
before they vanish from tenable.com:
https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-53

Additional References
https://bitbucket.org/ritt/elog/commits/7367647d40d9b43d529d952d3a063d53606697cb
https://bitbucket.org/ritt/elog/commits/38c08aceda8e5ac4bfdcc040710b5792bd5fe4d3
https://bitbucket.org/ritt/elog/commits/32ba07e19241e0bcc68aaa640833424fb3001956
https://bitbucket.org/ritt/elog/commits/15787c1edec1bbe1034b5327a9d6efa710db480b
https://bitbucket.org/ritt/elog/commits/283534d97d5a181b09960ae1f0c53dbbe42d8a90

Disclosure Timeline
12/3/2019 - Notice sent to stefan.ritt - AT - psi.ch. 90 day is March 3, 2020
12/4/2019 - Dr. Ritt acknowledges the report.
12/9/2019 - Dr. Ritt stages fixes in bitbucket.
12/9/2019 - Tenable provides feedback.
12/10/2019 - Dr. Ritt acknowledges.
12/11/2019 - Tenable reserves CVE.
12/11/2019 - Tenable notes the various ELOG instances maintained by Paul Scherrer Institute are patched.
12/11/2019 - Tenable informs Dr. Ritt and Mr. Roger Kalt (Debian/Ubuntu package manager) of intent to publish CVE tomorrow (Dec. 
12).

K.O.
  69520   Fri Apr 22 21:15:37 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: Vulnerability?
> > debian package still outdated?
> We reached to the package maintainer

the good Roger Kalt requested removal of debian package elog
and it is now removed from debian-unstable. I am not sure
if it can be removed from debian-stable releases (debian-11, debian-10).

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/elog
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1320035/removed-313-1-1-from-unstable/

K.O.
  69519   Fri Apr 22 17:10:24 2022 Reply Jan Just Keijserjanjust@nikhef.nlQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: Vulnerability?
> > > > I've built the last C version of elog in git, revision 1ebfd06c using mingw-64 ; the resulting binaries work for me on Windows 2019.
> > > > Attached is a zip file with the binaries.
> > > > I was not able to create a new installer, these are just the executables
> > > 
> > > I tried to just exchange the attached binaries in my installation but this didn't worked.
> > > elogd was not able to start.
> > 
> > hmmm strange - did you get an error message or did the binary simply not start?  I've only tested this on a single Windows machine....
> 
> Error message is:
> 
> Error 1053: The service did not respond to the start or control request in a timely fashion.
> 
> I have to admit that I'm doing all this on a Server 2012 machine.


Windows Server 2012 itself is almost EOL but it should still work, I believe.  I did see that the elog314-2.exe file is a Win32 binary whereas my binaries are 64bit. On Windows Server 2019 did not cause any issues.
Can you try the following
- extract the new elogd.exe binary somewhere , e.g. c:\temp\elogd.exe
- then type
  cd \Program Files (x86)\ELOG
  \temp\elogd.exe

- post the output/error code that you see.


  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6