5 ms·

> Gitea is protected against both of these issues. Is Gitea's immunity just incidental because it was written by a different person, or is it due to a delibera

by tredre3 23d ago

> Gitea is protected against both of these issues. Is Gitea's immunity just incidental because it was written by a different person, or is it due to a deliberate defensive system that prevents such bug/mistake from occurring?

embedding-shape 23d ago
Very interested in knowing too, since the issues seems to not be related at all, or similar, so now this must mean a Gitea "project leader" would only say this if they have some sort of layer that doesn't require them to manually patch issues individually. Meaning, firewall? Would be weird if that's built-in into Gitea though... Hmm.
- jonstaab 23d ago
  Forgejo is a fork of gitea.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 23d ago
    Hence the question...
- Macha 23d ago
  It looks like Gitea made the same fix (rm -r .git after template processing) back in February: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2bc3f3a9066020cc674f6b1#diff-491170640d4be1e5b696640c6d39f42b264825691b955aaa175935e182e9f0da# https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2b... PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734 So likely Gitea < 1.25.5 was vulnerable.
  - fartfeatures 23d ago
    It is unfortunate nobody tipped anyone off downstream.
    - vanschelven 23d ago
      given the fact that they communicated about this as a CVE, and Forgejo is a fork of gitea, one could say that this is on Forgejo though.
      - fartfeatures 22d ago
        Agreed, I didn't realise there had been a CVE.
    - dust-jacket 23d ago
      CVE AND release note not enough tipping off for you? it is absolutely not on maintainers of projects to proactively notify those who've forked the project. clear and transparent notices are exactly the right approach
      - fartfeatures 22d ago
        Apologies I didn't see there had been a CVE. I completely retract my statement.
  - ntauthority 23d ago
    i like how this is a side effect of a bunch of assorted changes in a commit and PR solely described as "Fix path resolving" making it hard for anyone running Gitea to even know this is a security fix
    - wvbdmp 23d ago
      It’s explicitly listed as a security fix in the release notes, accompanied by a CVE: https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.25.5/ https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.25.5/
    - tomxor 22d ago
      I'm not completely sure if this is supposed to be sincere, but it should be. It's not uncommon practice to omit the security implications on public facing commit messages when fixing secirity issues, so as to not to draw attention until it's ready for distribution.
  - embedding-shape 23d ago
    So not "Gitea is protected against both of these issues" but "Gitea fixed these issues earlier", which kind of feels like a less marketing-friendly version of what the Gitea employee said above. Why people can't just talk clearly and not try to oversell whatever they're doing? It's a disease at this point.

by tredre3 23d ago

embedding-shape 23d ago

Very interested in knowing too, since the issues seems to not be related at all, or similar, so now this must mean a Gitea "project leader" would only say this if they have some sort of layer that doesn't require them to manually patch issues individually. Meaning, firewall? Would be weird if that's built-in into Gitea though... Hmm.

jonstaab 23d ago
Forgejo is a fork of gitea.
- ThePowerOfFuet 23d ago
  Hence the question...
Macha 23d ago
It looks like Gitea made the same fix (rm -r .git after template processing) back in February: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2bc3f3a9066020cc674f6b1#diff-491170640d4be1e5b696640c6d39f42b264825691b955aaa175935e182e9f0da# https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2b... PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734 So likely Gitea < 1.25.5 was vulnerable.
- fartfeatures 23d ago
  It is unfortunate nobody tipped anyone off downstream.
  - vanschelven 23d ago
    given the fact that they communicated about this as a CVE, and Forgejo is a fork of gitea, one could say that this is on Forgejo though.
    - fartfeatures 22d ago
      Agreed, I didn't realise there had been a CVE.
  - dust-jacket 23d ago
    CVE AND release note not enough tipping off for you? it is absolutely not on maintainers of projects to proactively notify those who've forked the project. clear and transparent notices are exactly the right approach
    - fartfeatures 22d ago
      Apologies I didn't see there had been a CVE. I completely retract my statement.
- ntauthority 23d ago
  i like how this is a side effect of a bunch of assorted changes in a commit and PR solely described as "Fix path resolving" making it hard for anyone running Gitea to even know this is a security fix
  - wvbdmp 23d ago
    It’s explicitly listed as a security fix in the release notes, accompanied by a CVE: https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.25.5/ https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.25.5/
  - tomxor 22d ago
    I'm not completely sure if this is supposed to be sincere, but it should be. It's not uncommon practice to omit the security implications on public facing commit messages when fixing secirity issues, so as to not to draw attention until it's ready for distribution.
- embedding-shape 23d ago
  So not "Gitea is protected against both of these issues" but "Gitea fixed these issues earlier", which kind of feels like a less marketing-friendly version of what the Gitea employee said above. Why people can't just talk clearly and not try to oversell whatever they're doing? It's a disease at this point.