Home page logo

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE Request: Security issue in backuppc
From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm () debian org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:30:49 +0100

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:
On 01/03/2012 12:55 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:00:48PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Hi Craig,

While preparing updates to fix CVE-2011-3361 in Ubuntu I discovered
another XSS vulnerability in View.pm when accessing the following URLs
in backuppc:
index.cgi?action=view&type=XferLOG&num=<XSS here>&host=<some host>
index.cgi?action=view&type=XferErr&num=<XSS here>&host=<some host>

You are being emailed as the upstream contact. Please keep
oss-security () lists openwall com[1] CC'd for any updates on this issue.

To oss-security, can I have a CVE for this? It is essentially the same
vulnerability and fix as for CVE-2011-3361, but in CGI/View.pm instead
of CGI/Browse.pm. Attached is a patch to fix this issue. Tested on
3.0.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.0 and 3.2.1.

This hasn't ended up in a CVE assignment.

I believe as per ADT4 these issues should be merged into the existing


At this stage, X and Y are the same bug type, affect the same versions,
and affect the same products.

Do X and Y have any of the following characteristics?

    X appears in a different DLL, library, or program than Y (e.g. X
affects LIB1.DLL and Y affects LIB2.DLL)
    X has more serious impact than Y (e.g. code execution as root versus
leak of system pathname)
    X takes a different input parameter/argument than Y (e.g. SQL
injection in both the "user" and "password" parameters)
    X is exploitable locally, but Y is not.
    X requires stronger authentication than Y.
    X can be exploited by a certain user that Y can not (e.g. a guest
user vs. an admin)

    Yes: MERGE them. These characteristics are irrelevant for CVE.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but does this policy really make
sense if only X was tracked by a CVE for over half a year?

There might just as well be people, who addressed CVE-2011-3361 under
the impression that only X needs to be fixed and which will miss Y
if Y is folded into CVE-2011-3361.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]