Gordan Bobic via discuss <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi, I've been working on mapping CVE fixes in 10.6.x for the purpose
> of backporting the fixes recently. These two in 10.6.28 have me a
> little suspicious:
> CVE-2026-60585
> CVE-2026-60184

>From the CVE description, these both concern the case where the attacker is
able to craft arbitrary replication events and cause a slave server to
execute them.

The report mentions the ability to fully take over the server and/or
bringing it down until restarted. However, this capability is inherent in
the ability to control the replication stream. The slave must replicate
_all_ changes done on the master, including ie. creating a custom root
account or basically anything that could happen on the master, so this is
already "full takeover" by the nature of what replication means.

The only extra capability I have seen discussed is if the system is relying
on secure_file_priv for containerising an untrusted MariaDB server on a
trusted host, due to RCE. It is not mentioned in the two CVEs that this
would be the case, and as you omitted the specific commits I cannot tell if
it would apply.

My recommendation would be that this recent stream of "vulnerabilities" that
we have seen regarding specially crafted replication events, you should not
include in your 10.6 maintenance branch. You can also check the branch
knielsen_log_event_read_validation and the mailing list thread:

  
https://lists.mariadb.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/JXEAZRR2LVVZHWPXYJUW7KGYNCAWU2T7/

This is a large patch, and fixing these in 10.6 is probably more risk than
benefit. But it is also possible that you basically have to fix anything
that's gotten the "CVE" mark due to the politics around "security" these
days, and if so that's a reasonable pragmatic solution also.

> I'm working on backporting that 12-patch set to my private 10.6.x
> post-EOL maintenance branch, but I'd be happy to sync up with someone
> closer to the validation process off-list to verify (or disprove) my
> suspicions..

I think maintaining a 10.6 maintenance branch is a very valuable
contribution. You write it is your "private branch", but I would hope you
would be making it available to others? I would be happy to help you with
any technical issues (like resolving merge conflicts etc.). We also need to
make sure that you are included in any communication around vulnerability
fixing that happens before the normal MariaDB releases outside of the public
channels, so that release of those fixes can be coordinated and you not
having to scramble only after a normal release is dumped on you.

 - Kristian.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to