-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 221
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Add advisory for bindata #476
Comments
@kuahyeow are you associated with the |
@reedloden No, I am not associated with the
Yes, that will be good, thanks! |
Hello, I am with the GitHub Security Lab team. We are evaluating this to see if assigning a CVE makes sense CC @reedloden . Can someone articulate the security impact more clearly? The linked blog article discusses the use of Is the "Potential DoS" simply due to the previous implementation being inneficient? CC @kuahyeow could we get just a bit more details? |
Hello @rschultheis, thanks for reaching out. I think since this is public information, I can expand on the details. The issue is that it was extremely slow for certain classes in BinData to be created. For example So this, in combination with Does this make sense ? |
@kuahyeow yes that makes sense thanks. I've gone ahead and submited We have also published GHSA-hj56-84jw-67h6 for this. |
Also I made this PR to add this advisory to this repo: #483 |
This has been added. Thanks, all! |
Potential DoS (combined with
constantized
- see https://blog.presidentbeef.com/blog/2020/09/14/another-reason-to-avoid-constantize-in-rails/ for background) which was fixed in dmendel/bindata@d99f050 as part of bindata 2.4.10No CVE yet
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: