Re: [SECURITY] CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie

2019-01-26 Thread Mike Jumper
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:26 PM wrote: > > Would that mean if the server, if accessable only by > https://guacamole.domain.com/something/ > and http was blocked. it would be ok? in this case? > Yes. There would only be a danger of the session token being intercepted if unencrypted HTTP

Re: [SECURITY] CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie

2019-01-26 Thread DMoscovitch
rg, secur...@guacamole.apache.org Date: 01/23/19 05:21 PM Subject: [SECURITY] CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie Versions affected: Apache Guacamole 0.9.4 through 0.9.14 Descript

[SECURITY] CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie

2019-01-23 Thread Mike Jumper
CVE-2018-1340: Secure flag missing from Apache Guacamole session cookie Versions affected: Apache Guacamole 0.9.4 through 0.9.14 Description: Prior to 1.0.0, Apache Guacamole used a cookie for client-side storage of the user's session token. This cookie lacked the "secure" flag, which could