Vulnerability?, posted by Alessandro Petrolini on Thu Mar 3 08:26:40 2022
|
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.
|
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Konstantin Olchanski on Thu Mar 3 16:49:40 2022
|
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. |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Alessandro Petrolini on Fri Mar 4 08:51:24 2022
|
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. |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Alessandro Petrolini on Sun Mar 6 09:00:33 2022
|
> 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? |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Konstantin Olchanski on Sun Mar 6 17:33:04 2022
|
> > > 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. |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Mar 7 08:49:41 2022
|
> 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 |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Daniel Pfuhl on Mon Mar 7 14:30:16 2022
|
>
> 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 |
Re: Vulnerability?, posted by Jan Just Keijser on Mon Mar 7 17:46:39 2022
|
> > 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
FWIW: you could cross-compile on Linux using
make CC=x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc CFLAGS="-D_MSC_VER -DHAVE_VASPRintF -Imxml" LIBS="-Wl,--allow-multiple-definition -ladvapi32 -lwsock32 -lssl -lcrypto"
or so I thought... with build 3.1.4 - 395e101 I did manage, finally.
However, with the latest git version everything seems to have been renamed to .cxx files (though it's still plain C ??!?!?) and my quick and dirty compile hack did not work. The binaries do work, I can start the server and access it via the web interface. |