Summary: | <www-apps/mediawiki-1.25.6: multiple vulnerabilities | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Security | Reporter: | Agostino Sarubbo <ago> |
Component: | Vulnerabilities | Assignee: | Gentoo Security <security> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | minor | CC: | web-apps |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/12/21/8 | ||
Whiteboard: | B3 [noglsa cve] | ||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 600190 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Agostino Sarubbo
![]() Any updates on this Bug? Maintainers, can we have an update on the bug? (In reply to Yury German from comment #2) > Maintainers, can we have an update on the bug? Honestly I'd suggest package masking or even last-riting to force people who care about MediaWiki on gentoo to come out of the woodwork and (proxy-)maintain it. I used to semi-actively bump it even though I never used it, but I have little interest continuing to do so. All reported vulnerabilities were fixed by upstream in v1.25.4 which never hits the Gentoo repository. However we now have v1.25.6 which contains these fixes: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/www-apps/mediawiki?id=4670a4d7b5e591d2a50673d8213f84614da645c4 @ Maintainer(s): Please tell us how to proceed. Can we stabilize =www-apps/mediawiki-1.25.6 or =www-apps/mediawiki-1.27.1? @zlogene: why did you remove the CVEs from alias fields? these were correctly assigned (In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #5) > @zlogene: why did you remove the CVEs from alias fields? these were > correctly assigned Do not we put only first CVE id there? Otherwise it looks long and ugly (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #6) > (In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #5) > > @zlogene: why did you remove the CVEs from alias fields? these were > > correctly assigned > > Do not we put only first CVE id there? Otherwise it looks long and ugly The only reason that was done in the past was bugzilla only supported one bug ID, with multiple alias possible this is the correct behavior agreed within security (and dramastically improves lookups without doing quirky searches). (In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #7) > (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #6) > > (In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #5) > > > @zlogene: why did you remove the CVEs from alias fields? these were > > > correctly assigned > > > > Do not we put only first CVE id there? Otherwise it looks long and ugly > > The only reason that was done in the past was bugzilla only supported one > bug ID, with multiple alias possible this is the correct behavior agreed > within security (and dramastically improves lookups without doing quirky > searches). Thanks, probably I missed this point, Have not filed the bugs for years. GLSA Vote: No tree is clean. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=f923da46172598149d2f5b74b9667e92f957e532 |