> 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 removal of unmaintained out-of-date insecure versions of their stuff.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

> > > 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removal of unmaintained out-of-date insecure versions of their stuff.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.

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

> Something is not right with the elog account activation...

I did a test:
- register as new user "test", web page says "request for approval sent..." (good)
- check elog config, user "test" is present, "active" set to "no" (good)
- open the "approve/activate" URL, get "Invalid activation code" (should say: "activated successfully!")
- check elog config, user "test" now has "active" set to "yes" (good, "approve/activate" URL worked)
- open the "approve/activate" URL again, again "Invalid activation code" (should say: "already activated!")

additional test:
- from the elog config, user "test", set active to "no", save.
- open the "approve/activate" URL, get "Invalid activation code" (good, this time)
- check elog config, user "test" is still inactive (good)

So it looks like the "approve/activate" URL works correctly - only the first time it is accessed - but
returns wrong message "invalid activation code" instead of "success".

K.O.
 

we had an elog with only one logbook and one password file,
we added a second logbook with a second password file and everything broke.

specifically, login to the original logbook stopped working,
username and password is accepted, elog.log says "user accepted", but I am presented
with the login dialog again, ad infinitum, and cannot access the elog.

solution seems to be to "delete all cookies" (which is excessive,
google chrome wants to delete all cookies for *.triumf.ca,
which will log me out from everywhere I am logged in and probably
erase/reset web site preferences everywhere).

manually deleting just the elog session cookie also seems to work, though.

this suggests that there is a bug in elog, where on successful login,
it fails to create a new authentication cookie, but reuses an old
cookie, which is no longer valid, for whatever reason (that would
be a different bug, why adding one more logbook invalidates
existing logins?).

K.O.