[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <548AF731-EA0A-40C6-9F1D-A3DE86880AAC@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:55:02 -0700
From: "Vincent Danen" <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: mmcallis@...hat.com, cve-assign@...re.org,
"Markus Glaser" <glaser@...lowelt.biz>
Subject: Re: CVE requests: MediaWiki 1.22.3, 1.21.6 and 1.19.12
release
Seems odd to be asking these questions without asking someone from the MediaWiki team involved (I doubt they are subscribed to oss-sec). Given that Murray just posting what was written by upstream and even asked "if CVE worthy" I doubt he has the answers you're looking for. =)
I've cc'd Markus Glaser to this as he sent out the notification to the mediawiki-announce list so he may have the insight you're looking for.
On 02/28/2014, at 11:26 AM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> Some of this seems straightforward and we will send CVE assignments a
> little later. Our first question is about the UploadBase.php diff in:
>
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/7d923a6b53f7fbcb0cbc3a19797d741bf6f440eb,n,z
>
> Our first thought is that it might be best to have separate CVEs for
> "Disallow uploading non-whitelisted namespaces" and "disallow iframe
> elements" because they are distinct types of problems. The first one
> seems similar to what is discussed in:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aarchiba/SVG_sanitizer
>
> The first CVE would, roughly, have a root cause of "does not recognize
> that a trust relationship with a specific external site is reasonably
> required for use of a namespace." The second CVE would, roughly, have
> a root cause of "does not block IFRAME elements."
>
> Does anyone have an opposing view: for example, that adding the
> hardcoded $validNamespaces list can't be interpreted as a "normal"
> vulnerability fix? Across all products, adding a list of off-site URLs
> maintained by various third parties is rarely the essence of a
> security patch.
>
> (As a side issue, SVG_sanitizer allows
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace but the patched UploadBase.php
> does not.)
>
>
> Our second question is about
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 Comment 9. Do all
> valid tokens have the same length, and thus an attacker (if he looked
> at the source code) would already know that the wrong-length attempts
> would always fail?
>
> If not, a separate CVE would be needed on the basis of different
> affected versions.
>
> (This question is only about MediaWiki as shipped. If a system
> administrator would need to modify the source code to use a different
> length, and an attacker could detect that more easily because of
> 'strlen( $answer ) !== strlen( $test )' tests, that doesn't qualify
> for a CVE.)
>
> - --
> CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
> M/S M300
> 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
> [ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
--
Vincent Danen / Red Hat Security Response Team
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (711 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
