Technology

34989 readers

47 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Dev rejects CVE severity, makes his GitHub repo read-only (www.bleepingcomputer.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Agree that people like to fluff the severity of bugs they report. It's better for prestige and bounty payouts. But this is a little more nuanced.

"While I didn't really intend the module to be used for any security related checks, I'm very curious how an untrusted input could end up being passed into ip.isPrivate or ip.isPublic [functions] and then used for verifying where the network connection came from."

It's interesting, that it would be hard to make a case that there was a "vulnerability" in the ip package. But it seems like this package's entire purpose is input validation so it's kind of weird the dev thinks otherwise.

Recurring incidents like these raise the question, how does one strike a balance? Relentlessly reporting theoretical vulnerabilities can leave open-source developers, many of who are volunteers, exhausted from triaging noise.

The researchers need to provide proofs of concept. Actual functional exploits.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's interesting, that it would be hard to make a case that there was a "vulnerability" in the ip package. But it seems like this package's entire purpose is input validation so it's kind of weird the dev thinks otherwise.

Yes, input validation, probably for forms. What the Dev disputes is that he cannot see a case where it is used in a security critical way where

the input format is unknown and
it is essential to know if the IP is public or private.

[–] SirQuackTheDuck 11 points 5 months ago

Even worse, the CVE is effectively "if you use the package wrong, you get weird results".

The affected method has signature function isPrivate(ip: string): boolean. Passing in a hex number is not a string, and a method (toString) exists for this.

load more comments (4 replies)