Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upgrade vulnerable dependencies #1129

Closed
feffi opened this issue Jun 18, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Upgrade vulnerable dependencies #1129

feffi opened this issue Jun 18, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@feffi
Copy link
Contributor

feffi commented Jun 18, 2018

In the current development master, some of the dependencies (direct and transitive) are prone to several (and high) vulnerabilities. Those dependencies have to be replaced (direct) or version pinned (transitive).

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on com.google.guava:guava@21.0
- desc: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-COMGOOGLEGUAVA-32236

✗ High severity vulnerability found on commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils@1.8.3
- desc: Arbitrary Code Execution
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-COMMONSBEANUTILS-30077

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on io.undertow:undertow-core@1.4.25.Final
- desc: Directory Traversal
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-IOUNDERTOW-32074

✗ High severity vulnerability found on org.apache.commons:commons-email@1.4
- desc: SMTP Header Injection
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGAPACHECOMMONS-31458

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on org.apache.commons:commons-compress@1.12
- desc: Denial of Service (DoS)
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGAPACHECOMMONS-32122

✗ High severity vulnerability found on org.apache.lucene:lucene-queryparser@5.5.0
- desc: XML External Entity (XXE) Injection
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGAPACHELUCENE-31569

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on org.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-dom@1.9.1
- desc: Information Exposure
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGAPACHEXMLGRAPHICS-32304

✗ High severity vulnerability found on org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15on@1.53
- desc: Insufficient Validation
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGBOUNCYCASTLE-32340

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-utils@3.0.20
- desc: Directory Traversal
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGCODEHAUSPLEXUS-31521

✗ High severity vulnerability found on org.jasig.cas.client:cas-client-core@3.4.1
- desc: XML External Entity (XXE) Injection
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGJASIGCASCLIENT-31192

✗ Medium severity vulnerability found on org.slf4j:slf4j-ext@1.6.3
- desc: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGSLF4J-32138

✗ High severity vulnerability found on xerces:xercesImpl@2.8.1
- desc: Denial of Service (DoS)
- info: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-XERCES-31497
@jknack
Copy link
Member

jknack commented Jun 18, 2018

How did you get this output?

Also, can you please clear a bit and just add one report per library/jar? Guava for example is listed in every child project.

Also, I think some of these don't directly apply to Jooby. Some examples:

  • undertow directory traversal. I don't think this affect to Jooby, the last time I checked here we were good across all the server implementations (netty, jetty and undertow)

  • some others are only required by the coverage-report module (test only)

@feffi
Copy link
Contributor Author

feffi commented Jun 19, 2018

Hi, I did some analysis with snyk, nexus-iq and blackduck. Next step will be a taint-analysis of the jooby code itself, not only the OWASP A9.

For the vulnerabilities themselves: I'm currently looking into every issue closely, figuring out, if we can/must mitigate it. Regarding your traversal, you may be right, I would try to write a test for that, verifying it. Regardless of "test-only" dependencies those should be mitigated, if possible. Even "test-vulnerabilities" can be attacked (in the build pipeline for example).

And yes, thanks for the hint, I "uniqued" the list above.

@feffi
Copy link
Contributor Author

feffi commented Jun 19, 2018

I will split this into several items, it's more granular for fixing-branches

@jknack
Copy link
Member

jknack commented Jun 27, 2018

We can close this one, right? Already done in separated pulls.

@feffi
Copy link
Contributor Author

feffi commented Jun 28, 2018

yes, the rest is handled in separate issues/PRs

@feffi feffi closed this as completed Jun 28, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants