Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 47 of 805  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  69489   Mon Mar 7 14:30:16 2022 Reply Daniel Pfuhldaniel.pfuhl@medizin.uni-leipzig.deQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: 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
  69488   Mon Mar 7 08:49:41 2022 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: 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 removal of unmaintained out-of-date insecure versions of their stuff.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
  69487   Sun Mar 6 17:33:04 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.
> 
> 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.
  69486   Sun Mar 6 09:00:33 2022 Reply Alessandro Petrolinialessandro.petrolini@cern.chQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: 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?
  69485   Fri Mar 4 08:51:24 2022 Reply Alessandro Petrolinialessandro.petrolini@cern.chQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fRe: 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.
  69484   Thu Mar 3 16:49:40 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.
  69483   Thu Mar 3 08:26:40 2022 Question Alessandro Petrolinialessandro.petrolini@cern.chQuestionWindows3.1.4-a04faf9fVulnerability?

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.

 

  69481   Wed Mar 2 23:15:11 2022 Reply Konstantin Olchanskiolchansk@triumf.caBug reportLinuxELOG V3.1.4-cb3Re: Invalid activation code
> 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.
 
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6