Bug 28220 - security upd.: kdbg 1.2.9.ebuild
|
Bug#:
28220
|
Product: Gentoo Linux
|
Version: unspecified
|
Platform: All
|
|
OS/Version: Linux
|
Status: RESOLVED
|
Severity: enhancement
|
Priority: P2
|
|
Resolution: FIXED
|
Assigned To: kde@gentoo.org
|
Reported By: carlo@gentoo.org
|
|
Component: KDE
|
|
|
URL:
|
|
Summary: security upd.: kdbg 1.2.9.ebuild
|
|
Keywords: EBUILD
|
|
Status Whiteboard:
|
|
Opened: 2003-09-08 15:37 0000
|
Security Release Note: Fixed the security flaw which version 1.2.8 was
supposed
to, but did not, fix. The flaw enables any other local user to gain the
privileges of the user running KDbg provided the other users can access the
directory of the program being debugged. All versions of KDbg from 1.1.8 to
1.2.8, inclusive, including all development versions, are vulnerable.
(copied from apps.kde.com)
What's the gentoo policy - is KDE 2.x still supported? I'm asking, because the
ebuild could support it, but I don't know how to do this. need-kde() doesn't
support something like >=2 and the kde-functions.eclass doesn't export
kde[minor/major] versions as distutils.eclass with $PYVER. btw.: Shouldn't be
there a eclass variable naming agreement? $PYVER_MAJOR & $KDEMAJORVER isn't
consistent.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Dan: added you, because you are the author of kde-functions.eclass
Adding security so that they can file a GLSA if they deem it appropriate.
Removing dan since he doesn't want bugs assigned to him anymore.
The ebuild has been added - waiting for security team to make a move before resolving the
bug.
Caleb: Sorry, I didn't know that Dan don't want to get bugs assigned. The
questions remain...
- is KDE 2.x still supported?
- how about kde-functions.eclass / KDE version export - should I file an extra
bug report? e.g. In #27401 I worked around this, comparing $KDEDIR with a
hardcoded path, to distinct between KDE 3 and 3.x. But that's the way it should
work.
We are not supporting kde 2 and only leaving it available in portage for
posterity. I haven't
been applying security fixes for it either. I suppose it will be taken out in
the next few
months.
As far as the second part goes, I don't have a good answer. Your hacked
solution in the
pykde ebuild probably isn't the best, but if it works I say it's okay. If we
need to make
changes to the eclass, go ahead and file another bug.
this ebuild has been put in portage.
*** Bug 28153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***