Bug 98058 – www-apps/phpBB Unpatched phpBB XSS

• Product: Gentoo Security
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) 2005-07-05 14:51:16 UTC]

Seems like masking was a good idea. Filing this to keep track of it and inform infra.

[Comment 1 Matthias Geerdsen (RETIRED) 2005-07-08 04:23:21 UTC]

any reason this bug is restricted?

[Comment 2 Matthias Geerdsen (RETIRED) 2005-07-09 12:23:37 UTC]

opening bug, checked with jaervosz

(masked package)

web-apps, pls verify/advise, since there is no new upstream version available yet

[Comment 3 JG 2005-07-09 14:28:02 UTC]

there's a "workaround" (disables [url] feature) on the same thread on fd: 
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2005-07/0110.html  
  
exploit is also public on milw0rm 
  
JG 

[Comment 4 Matthias Geerdsen (RETIRED) 2005-07-10 09:16:08 UTC]

Since phpBB is masked, I guess we can wait for this to be fixed upstream.
Objections?

Btw... I think the ebuilds <=2.0.15 could be removed.

[Comment 5 David Bosso 2005-07-19 16:06:48 UTC]

Version 2.0.17 has been released with a fix:
http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=308490

[Comment 6 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) 2005-07-19 22:05:10 UTC]

web-apps please bump. 

[Comment 7 Renat Lumpau (RETIRED) 2005-07-20 05:10:38 UTC]

bumped

[Comment 8 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-07-20 05:25:10 UTC]

Then we are done.

[Comment 9 Jeroen Geilman 2005-08-23 12:40:42 UTC]

I don't understand - it is hard masked because of upstream problems, yet there
is now NO stable version in portage ?
How are we "done", then ?

[Comment 10 Renat Lumpau (RETIRED) 2005-08-23 12:43:29 UTC]

We are done in that phpBB is security-challenged, shall we say, so it's
p.masked. As such, there is no stable version in the tree.

[Comment 11 Maurice Volaski 2005-08-31 13:01:33 UTC]

I'm a bit confused. The GLSA http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200507-03.xml says that 
phpBB won't be included in the portage repository, but this new version has been added to the tree, 
masked as it may be.

Also, every program is continually facing vulnerabilities. That's why GLSA exists. So what does it mean 
it's security-challenged? Seems like that could apply only to programs that suffer from vulnerabilities 
that are not actively being addressed.

[Comment 12 Renat Lumpau (RETIRED) 2005-08-31 15:47:23 UTC]

Eh, security folks, that GLSA is incorrect. It's still in the tree, just p.mask'ed.

[Comment 13 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) 2005-08-31 22:05:25 UTC]

Reopening to fix GLSA. 

[Comment 14 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-09-03 02:13:22 UTC]

Replaced "removed" by "masked" in the GLSA.