First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 113239
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: ollonois <ollonois@gmx.de>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Flags: Requestee:
 
 
  ()

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
opera-8.51.ebuild opera-8.51.ebuild text/plain Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 11:38 0000 3.92 KB Details
opera-8.51.ebuild opera-8.51.ebuild text/plain Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 11:53 0000 3.92 KB Details
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 113239 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 113239 blocks:

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2005-11-22 04:02 0000
Updated Opera's wrapper script to not run commands included with URLs passed
from other applications. Vulnerability reported in Secunia Advisory 16907.

* Note that the update also modifies behavior for passed URLs, which will no
longer work if quoted. That is, openURL(www.example.com) will work,
openURL('www.example.com') will not.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

------- Comment #1 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 04:09:57 0000 -------
Please, make Bug 113237 public. It's announced at
http://secunia.com/advisories/16907/ - can't see any reason why this should not
be public here. 

------- Comment #2 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 04:49:31 0000 -------
"The vulnerability is caused due to the shell script used to launch Opera
parsing shell commands that are enclosed within backticks in the URL provided
via the command line. This can e.g. be exploited to execute arbitrary shell
commands by tricking a user into following a malicious link in an external
application which uses Opera as the default browser."

Ccing maintainer.

------- Comment #3 From Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 11:38:03 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=73390) [details]
opera-8.51.ebuild

------- Comment #4 From Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 11:41:09 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=73390) [edit] [details]
> opera-8.51.ebuild
> 

Oops. Patch files/opera-qt.2.patch fails..


------- Comment #5 From Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 11:53:03 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=73392) [details]
opera-8.51.ebuild

Patch doesn't apply it seems... Not Qt workaround (qtrc) appears in the opera
script at all. And 8.51 works fine without it.

------- Comment #6 From Heinrich Wendel (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 12:09:01 0000 -------
I currently have no possibility to commit anything. 

------- Comment #7 From Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 12:13:13 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I currently have no possibility to commit anything. 

I can do it if you approve that ebuild...

------- Comment #8 From Jeroen Roovers 2005-11-22 12:33:07 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I currently have no possibility to commit anything. 
> 
> I can do it if you approve that ebuild...
> 

On second thoughts, I assume your comment means you wanted it commited, so it's 
in CVS now...


------- Comment #9 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-11-22 13:01:00 0000 -------
Arches please test and mark stable. 

------- Comment #10 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 13:18:07 0000 -------
sparc stable.

------- Comment #11 From Luis Medinas (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 15:19:52 0000 -------
stable on amd64

------- Comment #12 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-11-23 04:35:24 0000 -------
*** Bug 113237 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #13 From Chris White (RETIRED) 2005-11-23 08:36:34 0000 -------
x86 stable. 

------- Comment #14 From Denilson 2005-11-24 12:47:19 0000 -------
Not stable yet. Ebuild must be fixed:

# USE=static emerge -v opera
[some 404 not found errors on some mirrors]
!!! Digest verification Failed:
!!!    /usr/portage/distfiles/opera-8.51-20051114.1-static-qt.i386-en.tar.bz2
!!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size

(using x86 arch)

------- Comment #15 From Chris White (RETIRED) 2005-11-24 22:11:22 0000 -------
The archives in the digest and those on the opera mirrors don't match indeed. 
I 
didn't notice as I was using the shared version.  I've contacted opera in a bug 
report regarding the matter to verify it's our issue and not a corrupted
archive 
on their site (hackers :/).  Once I get a response I'll update this bug from 
there.

------- Comment #16 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-11-25 00:24:39 0000 -------
Can an Opera user double-check that we are indeed affected ?

There was a similar thing for Firefox but our Gentoo-specific wrapper made us
unaffected. I don't want to issue a GLSA while we don't have the vulnerability :)

------- Comment #17 From Baby Smurf 2005-11-26 19:12:32 0000 -------
LOL!!!


------- Comment #18 From Andrej Kacian (RETIRED) 2005-11-26 19:20:56 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> LOL!!!
> 
> 

This is not a forum, please refrain from such useless comments next time. Thank 
you.

------- Comment #19 From Markku 2005-11-27 00:56:34 0000 -------
I think http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113330#c3 has a quite good
explanation for ebuild problem.

------- Comment #20 From Chris White (RETIRED) 2005-11-27 02:01:02 0000 -------
digests fixed, x86 marked stable still.

------- Comment #21 From Joe Jezak 2005-11-27 11:32:39 0000 -------
Marked ppc stable.

------- Comment #22 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-11-27 12:13:01 0000 -------
All stable. Let's verify wether our wrapper script is affected too before 
taking any GLSA decision. 

------- Comment #23 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-12-09 06:48:42 0000 -------
Any Opera user could check if we are vulnerable to this ?

------- Comment #24 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-12-12 06:49:07 0000 -------
lanius: could you confirm if we use the common Opera wrapper, which would make
us vulnerable to this flaw ?

------- Comment #25 From Heinrich Wendel (RETIRED) 2005-12-12 08:09:18 0000 -------
we use the common wrapper 

------- Comment #26 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-12-13 05:44:28 0000 -------
I tend to vote yes.

------- Comment #27 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-12-14 04:22:08 0000 -------
I tend to vote YES too. 

------- Comment #28 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-12-15 04:23:45 0000 -------
So let's do a GLSA.

------- Comment #29 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-12-18 07:09:43 0000 -------
GLSA 200512-10

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug