[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELTOOLS-172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15903885#comment-15903885 ]
Michael Osipov edited comment on VELTOOLS-172 at 3/9/17 9:44 PM: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Release planning is dicussed on the dev mailing list, not in tickets. As four your second question: consult Subversion history. was (Author: michael-o): Release planning is dicussed in the users mailing list, not in tickets. As four your second question: consult Subversion history. > Upgrade to supported, secure version of Apache Commons Validator > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: VELTOOLS-172 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELTOOLS-172 > Project: Velocity Tools > Issue Type: Bug > Components: VelocityStruts > Affects Versions: 2.0, 2.0.x, 2.1, 2.x > Reporter: Aaron Katz > Labels: security > > *Please upgrade Apache Commons Validator to a supported, secure version*. At > this time, that appears to mean [upgrading to > 1.6|https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-validator/changes-report.html] > h2. vulnerabilities > There is at least one publicly known high severity vulnerability > ([CVE-2014-0114|https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-0114]), > allowing remote code execution, affecting all versions from 1.3.1 through > 1.4.1. > A cursory review shows that there do not appear to be publicly known > vulnerabilities in 1.5 and above. > h2. support > Apache Commons Validator 1.3.x [has not had a release since > 2006|https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-validator/changes-report.html], > but [VelocityTools depends upon Validator > 1.3|http://velocity.apache.org/tools/2.0/dependencies.html]. I was unable to > determine which branches Validator considers to be supported, so am > suggesting upgrade to 1.6. Given the release history of one major release > followed by one minor release, then moving immediately to the next major > release, this seems like a reasonable starting target. > When vulnerabilities are discovered in unsupported software, the industry > standard response is "you need to patch to a supported version." If you get > too far behind in patch levels, then it may be very difficult to upgrade due > to broken backwards compatibility. > Furthermore, when vulnerabilities are discovered in supported software, there > is no industry standard for determining if it affects unsupported versions. > It's entirely possible that there are known vulnerabilities that affect the > apparantly-unsupported Apache Commons Validator 1.3 required by Velocity, and > nobody will know until they're breached. On the other hand, when there's a > supported major version, it's a de-facto industry standard to announce all > supported versions that are affected. This means that staying on a supported > version increases the chances of seeing vulnerability announcements for vulns > that affect Velocity. It also means that staying on an unsupported version > is considered equivalent to staying on a known vulnerable version. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org