Skip to content

Replace 'request' with 'require' in go.mod to allow downstream fix. #49

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mishas
Copy link
Contributor

@mishas mishas commented Oct 7, 2021

Fixes #47

@mishas
Copy link
Contributor Author

mishas commented Oct 8, 2021

@fergusstrange , FYI.

github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.8 h1:ERv8V6GKqVi23rgu5cj9pVfVzJbOqAY2Ntl88O6c2nQ=
github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.8/go.mod h1:nbz6k7qbPmH4IRqmfOplQw/tblSgqTqBwxkY0oWt/14=
github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.6/go.mod h1:2bypXElzHzzJZwzH67Y6wb67pO62Rzfn7BSiF4ABRW8=
github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.7/go.mod h1:nbz6k7qbPmH4IRqmfOplQw/tblSgqTqBwxkY0oWt/14=
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmmm I think the way these vulnerability scanners work is that they scan the go.sum for references to the package versions with the CVE present. I'm pretty sure this is going to make it break again if there is still reference to github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.6.

Can you investigate a little and find out?

Thanks @mishas

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The way Go works, is it's taking the largest version (that's still considered to be backward compatible) from the go.sum file.
If the vulnerability scanner is any good, it should do the same...

I can only speak towards Dependabot (the Github built-in solution), which is what I'm using, and it will works correctly.
No idea what others are using, and how that will stack up to the challenge.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @mishas,

It's been something I've been meaning to do for a while anyway so have started on the task this evening of removing the actual majority of the archiver dependencies, which would include xz anyway.

If you're desperate for the above change we can work this one through but I think I should be able to get a release of the removal in the next few days out for you.

If you'd like to contribute to the code or review you can find here #50. It's almost there but will need some eyes on it and some new coverage.

Thanks

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @fergusstrange ,

I'm not desperate about the above change, I just made it because I thought the previous change (#42) was incorrect, and wanted to fix it.

Feel free to close this PR, and I'll look into reviewing #50.

Thanks.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CVE-2020-16845 still occurs on dependant products
2 participants