Re: Re: CVE request for wget

[Seth Arnold <seth.arnold () canonical com>]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:57:26PM -0400, cve-assign () mitre org wrote:
> If there is any additional Tails vulnerability related to this,
> another CVE ID may be needed. For example,
>
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2015-08/msg00050.html
>
> says
>
>   to be 100% sure, you should add --passive-ftp to your command line.
>   If you don't do that, your /etc/wgetrc or ~/.wgetrc could include
>   --no-passive-ftp (or passiveftp = off).
>
> If Tails is supposed to try to ensure that, perhaps there's a
> requirement to have something like:
>
>   alias wget="wget --passive-ftp"
>
> in a system-wide location (possibly /etc/bash.bashrc). The concept of
> CVE IDs for "failure of a torify step" issues is new, and we aren't
> sure of the best approach.

I suspect using a bash alias in a site-wide config might then qualify for
another CVE in the future, along the lines of "programs that spawn wget
via system(3), popen(3), or exec family of functions can use unsafe active
mode by accident". If Tails is in the business of fixing these things
for safety, removing active ftp support from tools seems like better fix.

Thanks

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature