oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc
From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm () debian org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:30:49 +0100
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:
On 01/03/2012 12:55 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:00:48PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:Hi Craig, While preparing updates to fix CVE-2011-3361 in Ubuntu I discovered another XSS vulnerability in View.pm when accessing the following URLs in backuppc: index.cgi?action=view&type=XferLOG&num=<XSS here>&host=<some host> index.cgi?action=view&type=XferErr&num=<XSS here>&host=<some host> You are being emailed as the upstream contact. Please keep oss-security () lists openwall com[1] CC'd for any updates on this issue. To oss-security, can I have a CVE for this? It is essentially the same vulnerability and fix as for CVE-2011-3361, but in CGI/View.pm instead of CGI/Browse.pm. Attached is a patch to fix this issue. Tested on 3.0.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.0 and 3.2.1.*ping* This hasn't ended up in a CVE assignment. Cheers, MoritzI believe as per ADT4 these issues should be merged into the existing CVE-2011-3361: ADT4: At this stage, X and Y are the same bug type, affect the same versions, and affect the same products. Do X and Y have any of the following characteristics? X appears in a different DLL, library, or program than Y (e.g. X affects LIB1.DLL and Y affects LIB2.DLL) X has more serious impact than Y (e.g. code execution as root versus leak of system pathname) X takes a different input parameter/argument than Y (e.g. SQL injection in both the "user" and "password" parameters) X is exploitable locally, but Y is not. X requires stronger authentication than Y. X can be exploited by a certain user that Y can not (e.g. a guest user vs. an admin) Yes: MERGE them. These characteristics are irrelevant for CVE.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but does this policy really make sense if only X was tracked by a CVE for over half a year? There might just as well be people, who addressed CVE-2011-3361 under the impression that only X needs to be fixed and which will miss Y if Y is folded into CVE-2011-3361. Cheers, Moritz
Current thread:
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Moritz Mühlenhoff (Jan 03)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Kurt Seifried (Jan 03)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Moritz Muehlenhoff (Jan 04)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Steven M. Christey (Jan 04)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Kurt Seifried (Jan 04)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Moritz Muehlenhoff (Jan 04)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Kurt Seifried (Jan 04)
- Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc Kurt Seifried (Jan 03)