Hi Roberto,

after talking to the PMC chair, I can give you three commit links.

https://github.com/apache/shiro/commit/042c59356cc6442345a9f935aed3e7603cb4dfad
https://github.com/apache/shiro/commit/5b1add9a4c4ed046b52cf2132ed0f264a22caf1d
https://github.com/apache/shiro/commit/1b9d8d99cd6d50d7114916508a13677a0fe6f345

I guess it is quite obvious what is inside these commits.

Best regards,
Ben

Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 18:35 Uhr schrieb Roberto C. Sánchez <
[email protected]>:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:34:17PM +0100, Benjamin Marwell wrote:
> > Hello Roberto,
> >
> > looking at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/shiro, it seems extremely
> unwise
> > to have a java library as a package. Being both a debian/ubuntu user
> *and*
> > java developer myself, I know this can cause a lot of incompatibilities.
> > For example, application "a" might require shiro-1.3.2, application "b"
> > might require shiro-1.7.x and application "c" might require the
> > incompatible shiro-2.x.x.
> > In my (personal) opinion, java applications should always be packaged
> with
> > their own lib directory.
> >
>
> I understand.  As a Java developer I rarely depend on any Java library
> as shipped by a Linux distribution, preferring the approach you
> describe.  That said, the shiro package is in Debian and it is better to
> have the vulnerability addressed rather than to leave it open.
>
> > Anyway, back to your original question. I will talk to the rest of the
> team
> > if such a disclosure is possible.
> >
> > The list of published CVEs can be found here:
> > https://shiro.apache.org/security-reports.html
> >
> > >  However, at the moment I am concerned with CVE-2020-13933
> >
> > This would be most unpleasant for users, as they would still suffer from
> > the other CVEs.
>
> Are you referring to CVE-2020-17510?  I have not yet investigated that
> CVE.  Or are you referring to other CVEs?
>
> > I wonder: does your policy actually allow this?
> >
> It depends.  CVEs are evaluated and a variety of factors are considered
> in deciding whether a CVE will be fixed or not.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Ben
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
> >
> > Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 06:45 Uhr schrieb Roberto C. Sánchez <
> > [email protected]>:
> >
> > > Hi Ben,
> > >
> > > Thanks for responding.
> > >
> > > It seems that my initial message was not especially clear.
> > >
> > > Please see my comments below.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 09:03:41PM +0100, Benjamin Marwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Roberto,
> > > >
> > > > I found your email in my spam folder. Maybe this is the reason why
> noone
> > > > answered.
> > > >
> > > > There will probably no backport for the CVE you mentioned.
> > >
> > > I am more than willing to backport the fix, but the specific commit
> > > associated with fixing the CVE in question is not identified anywhere.
> > > If someone who is knowledgeable about the shiro history could specify
> > > the commit(s) which fix the CVE, that would be a good start.
> > >
> > > If it turns out that backporting the commit(s) to fix the CVE will not
> > > work, then I could work out an alternate fix based on the 1.3.2 code.
> > > Note that this would require information about the exploit and how to
> > > reproduce it, so that I could validate the alternate fix.
> > >
> > > > On the contrary, there were multiple other CVEs in the meantime.
> > > >
> > > I understand.  However, at the moment I am concerned with
> CVE-2020-13933
> > > and shiro 1.3.2.
> > >
> > > > I can highly recommend you to update to SHIRO 1.6.0 and stay updated
> as
> > > > much as possible.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a specific reason why you want to stay on 1.3.2?
> > > > As far as I know, there was no version of shiro which introduced
> > > > incompatibilities.
> > > >
> > > That is not possible.  The policy for package updates in Debian
> > > precludes such a change.  Backports of security fixes are possible,
> > > however.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -Roberto
> > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ben
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 02:08 Uhr schrieb Roberto C. Sánchez <
> > > > [email protected]>:
> > > >
> > > > > bump
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:48:17PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > > > > Shiro Devs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am working on a security update for the shiro package in
> Debian.
> > > The
> > > > > > announcement for 1.6.0 indicates that CVE-2020-13933 is fixed in
> that
> > > > > > release.  However, the specific commit is not identified.
> > > Additionally,
> > > > > > since neither the announcement nor any available information on
> the
> > > CVE
> > > > > > describes the means of exploitation it is not clear how I should
> > > proceed
> > > > > > to go about backporting the fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 1.6.0 announcement describes the new "Global Filters"
> feature as
> > > > > > helping to mitigate the type of issue described by
> CVE-2020-13933.
> > > It
> > > > > > seems that commit dc194fc977ab6cfbf3c1ecb085e2bac5db14af6d is
> what is
> > > > > > being referred to.  However, the change is rather substantial and
> > > > > > appears like it would require significant reworking to apply to
> > > 1.3.2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If someone could help with the following questions it would be
> very
> > > much
> > > > > > appreciated:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Is a backport of commit
> dc194fc977ab6cfbf3c1ecb085e2bac5db14af6d to
> > > > > >   1.3.2 possible/feasible?
> > > > > > - Would it be possible to obtain information about the exploit to
> > > assist
> > > > > >   with either backporting
> dc194fc977ab6cfbf3c1ecb085e2bac5db14af6d or
> > > > > >   with developing a new fix for 1.3.2?
> > > > > > - Is there another approach that I should be considering instead?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Roberto
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Roberto C. Sánchez
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roberto C. Sánchez
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roberto C. Sánchez
> > > http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
> > > http://www.connexer.com
> > >
>
> --
> Roberto C. Sánchez
> http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
> http://www.connexer.com
>

Reply via email to