Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 476652 (CVE-2013-1777) - dev-java/mx4j-core: Improper RMI classloader implementation in JMX remoting functionality leading to arbitrary code execution (CVE-2013-1777)
Summary: dev-java/mx4j-core: Improper RMI classloader implementation in JMX remoting f...
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: CVE-2013-1777
Product: Gentoo Security
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Vulnerabilities (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal major (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Security
URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug....
Whiteboard: B1 [noglsa]
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-07-12 18:59 UTC by Agostino Sarubbo
Modified: 2015-06-16 17:51 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
JMXConnector.java (JMXConnector.java,1.48 KB, text/x-java)
2015-06-13 20:48 UTC, Patrice Clement
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Agostino Sarubbo gentoo-dev 2013-07-12 18:59:38 UTC
From ${URL} :

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2013-1777 to the following 
vulnerability:

The JMX Remoting functionality in Apache Geronimo 3.x before 3.0.1, as used in IBM WebSphere 
Application Server (WAS) Community Edition 3.0.0.3 and other products, does not property implement 
the RMI classloader, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by using the JMX 
connector to send a crafted serialized object.

References:
[1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2013-07/0008.html
[2] http://geronimo.apache.org/30x-security-report.html
[3] http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21643282
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6477


@maintainer(s): after the bump, in case we need to stabilize the package, please say explicitly if it is ready for the stabilization or not.
Comment 1 Chris Reffett (RETIRED) gentoo-dev Security 2013-08-27 03:18:46 UTC
Appears to be fixed upstream at [1]. Also appears to only affect -core.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=1458113
Comment 2 GLSAMaker/CVETool Bot gentoo-dev 2013-08-27 03:18:59 UTC
CVE-2013-1777 (http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2013-1777):
  The JMX Remoting functionality in Apache Geronimo 3.x before 3.0.1, as used
  in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) Community Edition 3.0.0.3 and
  other products, does not property implement the RMI classloader, which
  allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by using the JMX connector
  to send a crafted serialized object.
Comment 3 Patrice Clement gentoo-dev 2015-06-13 20:47:25 UTC
Hi

After investigating what was wrong with this package, I've come to the conclusion that:
- this CVE indeed affects Apache Geronimo 3.0 which we don't have packaged in Portage.
- .. a software which is totally different from mx4j.
- after looking at the URL given by Chris, I've sieved through all the source code in mx4j and mx4j-core and there's only one file called JMXConnector.java which content is widely different from the fix suggested by the URL. In mx4j, JMXConnector.java is an interface instead of class.

Again, this CVE does not affect mx4j but Apache Geronimo.

You can go ahead, close this bug and mark it as INVALID.
Comment 5 Kristian Fiskerstrand (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2015-06-16 17:51:34 UTC
(In reply to Patrice Clement from comment #3)
> Hi
> 
> After investigating what was wrong with this package, I've come to the
> conclusion that:
> - this CVE indeed affects Apache Geronimo 3.0 which we don't have packaged
> in Portage.
> - .. a software which is totally different from mx4j.
> - after looking at the URL given by Chris, I've sieved through all the
> source code in mx4j and mx4j-core and there's only one file called
> JMXConnector.java which content is widely different from the fix suggested
> by the URL. In mx4j, JMXConnector.java is an interface instead of class.
> 
> Again, this CVE does not affect mx4j but Apache Geronimo.
> 
> You can go ahead, close this bug and mark it as INVALID.

Thanks for the work in detecting this, closing