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

Restore A9 Insecure Components vulnerability #199

Closed
rcowsill opened this issue Jun 6, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

Restore A9 Insecure Components vulnerability #199

rcowsill opened this issue Jun 6, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@rcowsill
Copy link
Contributor

rcowsill commented Jun 6, 2020

The A9: Insecure Components vulnerability tutorial refers to the use of an insecure version of the Marked library, making the memos page vulnerable to XSS.

It appears that the project was upgraded to use marked 0.3.9, which fixed this vulnerability. This means none of the example exploit strings in the tutorial result in a successful XSS attack.

I think the package.json needs to specify marked 0.3.5, as that is the last version with the XSS vulnerability.

Note that this is also relevant to PR #169, which currently specifies the 0.3.9 version instead of 0.3.5.

@ckarande
Copy link
Member

ckarande commented Jun 9, 2020

@rcowsill Thanks for reporting the issue. 👍

You are right about it. Will will add it in our backlog. In case you have bandwidth, we will be happy to merge a PR with the required fix.

@rcowsill
Copy link
Contributor Author

Would you want that PR from a feature branch in a fork of master?

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes @rcowsill from and against feature/187 as we are implementing Lerna #187 (PR pending: #189)

@rcowsill
Copy link
Contributor Author

rcowsill commented Aug 8, 2020

As discussed in #206, I'm going to add a test to confirm this vulnerability is present and functioning as expected. PR for that to follow...

@rcowsill
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR #208 containing the A9 test has been merged into feature/187. Should this issue be closed now, or should it be kept around until #187 is merged into master?

@lirantal
Copy link
Collaborator

ahh, I didn't even notice it's not PRed to the master branch
@UlisesGascon can you advise?

@lirantal lirantal closed this as completed Mar 6, 2023
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

4 participants