Bug 333175 – <dev-db/couchdb-1.0.1: Cross Site Request Forgery Vulnerability (CVE-2010-2234)

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Security

[Description Tim Sammut (RETIRED) 2010-08-17 16:29:12 UTC]

From: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/0200.html

CVE-2010-2234: Apache CouchDB Cross Site Request Forgery Attack

Severity: Important

Vendor:
The Apache Software Foundation

Versions Affected:
Apache CouchDB 0.8.0 to 0.11.0

Description:
Apache CouchDB versions prior to version 0.11.1 are vulnerable to
cross site request forgery (CSRF) attacks.

Mitigation:
All users should upgrade to CouchDB 0.11.2 or 1.0.1. Upgrades from 
the 0.11.x and 0.10.x series should be seamless. Users on earlier 
versions should consult 

http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes

Example:
A malicious website can POST arbitrary JavaScript code to well
known CouchDB installation URLs (like http://localhost:5984/)
and make the browser execute the injected JavaScript in the
security context of CouchDB's admin interface Futon.

Unrelated, but in addition the JSONP API has been turned off
by default to avoid potential information leakage.

Credit:
This CSRF issue was discovered by a source that wishes to stay 
anonymous.

References:
http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery

[Comment 1 Dirkjan Ochtman (RETIRED) 2010-08-17 21:40:01 UTC]

Should we fast-track 1.0.1 for stabilization?

[Comment 2 Alex Legler (RETIRED) 2010-08-20 13:45:24 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Should we fast-track 1.0.1 for stabilization?
> 

If that is possible w/o causing too much migration pain for users.
[1] mentions quite some things.

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes

[Comment 3 Tim Sammut (RETIRED) 2010-08-28 21:11:28 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Should we fast-track 1.0.1 for stabilization?
> > 
> 
> If that is possible w/o causing too much migration pain for users.
> [1] mentions quite some things.
> 
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes
> 

Dirkjan, are you comfortable with stabilizing 1.0.1 based on the information from the URL above?

Thanks!

[Comment 4 Dirkjan Ochtman (RETIRED) 2010-08-29 18:00:41 UTC]

Yeah, that would be great. Thanks!

[Comment 5 Dirkjan Ochtman (RETIRED) 2010-08-29 18:02:08 UTC]

(Sorry, I should have properly acknowledged this earlier, last week was pretty crazy. In any case, the breaking changes listed for 0.11 -> 1.0.x are really pretty minor, they shouldn't cause much breakage in practice.)

[Comment 6 Tim Sammut (RETIRED) 2010-08-29 18:31:24 UTC]

Thanks, Dirkjan.

Arches, please test and mark stable:
=dev-db/couchdb-1.0.1
Target keywords : "amd64 ppc x86"

[Comment 7 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. (RETIRED) 2010-08-30 01:57:03 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 8 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) 2010-08-30 11:50:58 UTC]

amd64 done

[Comment 9 Dirkjan Ochtman (RETIRED) 2010-09-03 21:30:39 UTC]

*** Bug 335881 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 10 Joe Jezak (RETIRED) 2010-09-12 13:51:40 UTC]

Marked ppc stable.

[Comment 11 Dirkjan Ochtman (RETIRED) 2010-09-27 10:51:07 UTC]

Security guys: I think this one can be closed.

[Comment 12 Stefan Behte (RETIRED) 2010-09-29 21:20:43 UTC]

GLSA vote: NO.

[Comment 13 Pierre-Yves Rofes (RETIRED) 2010-09-29 21:28:39 UTC]

No too, closing, kthxbye.