Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
CrOS: Vulnerability reported in net-misc/rsync |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionAutomated analysis has detected that the following third party packages have had vulnerabilities publicly reported. NOTE: There may be several bugs listed below - in almost all cases, all bugs can be quickly addressed by upgrading to the latest version of the package. Package Name: net-misc/rsync Package Version: [cpe:/a:samba:rsync:3.1.2] Advisory: CVE-2017-17433 Details: https://vomit.googleplex.com/advisory?id=CVE/CVE-2017-17433 CVSS severity score: 7.5/10.0 Confidence: high Description: The recv_files function in receiver.c in the daemon in rsync 3.1.2, and 3.1.3-development before 2017-12-03, proceeds with certain file metadata updates before checking for a filename in the daemon_filter_list data structure, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. Advisory: CVE-2017-17434 Details: https://vomit.googleplex.com/advisory?id=CVE/CVE-2017-17434 CVSS severity score: 7.5/10.0 Confidence: high Description: The daemon in rsync 3.1.2, and 3.1.3-development before 2017-12-03, does not check for fnamecmp filenames in the daemon_filter_list data structure (in the recv_files function in receiver.c) and also does not apply the sanitize_paths protection mechanism to pathnames found in "xname follows" strings (in the read_ndx_and_attrs function in rsync.c), which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
,
Dec 24 2017
we def use rsync in the SDK, and while talking to DUTs. but it's not part of the verified rootfs, only dev/test images. further, we don't run rsync daemon anywhere exposed to arbitrary network connections ... it only shows up when rsyncing to a remote side and the daemon is implicitly invoked. so while we def want to upgrade to resolve the issue, it's not critical to system security.
,
Dec 27 2017
Gonna mark this as P3.
,
Dec 27 2017
,
Jan 3 2018
CL is up here: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/847956
,
Feb 16 2018
The CL from #5 has been pushed. Can this bug be marked as fixed ?
,
Feb 16 2018
yep, thanks. it was cherry picked back to M64 too.
,
Feb 16 2018
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by xzhou@chromium.org
, Dec 24 2017Components: OS>Packages