Skip to content

CVE affecting 2 library dependencies #14235

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
michelou opened this issue Jan 9, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #14247
Closed

CVE affecting 2 library dependencies #14235

michelou opened this issue Jan 9, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #14247

Comments

@michelou
Copy link
Contributor

michelou commented Jan 9, 2022

Compiler version

The issue exists in both versions 3.1.1-RC2 and 3.1.2-DEV of the Scala 3 software distribution.

Affected Java library

Both Java libraries jackson-databind 2.2.x and liqp 0.6.x are affected by over 40 CVE and

  1. Dependency on jackson-databind2.2.3 exists in all Scala 3 distributions since version 3.0.0.
  2. Dependency on liqp0.6.7 exists in versions 3.0.x up to 3.1.1-RC2.
  3. Dependency on liqp0.6.8 exists in version 3.1.2-DEV.

Final Notes

  1. In January 2018 @smarter failed to update liqp as described in issue 3859 and I did not find any trace of another try.
  2. In October 2021 @michelou opened discussion17799 to gain attention but without success to date.

CC @sjrd @SethTisue

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Jan 9, 2022

It'd be nice to keep our dependencies up to date of course, but CVEs in our dependencies are not security concern: the input of scalac/scaladoc is your own code, not some untrusted user input, and you don't need any exploit to get arbitrary code execution, just call a macro, so patching CVEs won't make you less vulnerable to untrusted input.

@smarter smarter removed their assignment Jan 9, 2022
@julienrf
Copy link
Contributor

julienrf commented Jan 9, 2022

@michelou thank you for the report! Do you know if upgrading those dependencies would require a lot of work?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants