perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] [EXTERNAL] Re: python-flask vulnerability
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: "Uhl, George D. (GSFC-423.0)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]" <>
- To: Andrew Lake <>, perfSONAR-Developer <>, perfsonar-user <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] [EXTERNAL] Re: python-flask vulnerability
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:50:27 +0000
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nasa.gov; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nasa.gov; dkim=pass header.d=nasa.gov; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=A3rT2D9t7Zz4h7zR+Ue7CyUt12kLO/jVn/XRLuRkMs4=; b=l8X5xmTPnkrNgmATR3OOZkmEnalfJS3DX03nuC/bhrel0Ss6IjuobWPeTg8hyePhvpv0+Yq/nSIYjT34+cO/EcT8mhqZGS/42UMYdFaxgh/vJt7AsE5p76QvP7VCgGmg9APwV61DQgRR2MnHIUdx8lvFQn7/79tdHTxVB+LnEDDYzlvfqcYrVywBkE60nwNiykECLXjBMYlgdnEa8IbSKVz13ab7ZlDwifKss6Gj7OAG+w9jxYd+/JHQsejAr9ppXBIqfxdJuEGlOD4bJjjyJLKyhQHHB/br8xkDXLCH6ntuMdlocP6iaR67Z8f6P7fVJZvkAqyll86wx3sjlZK+vg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ZArojJj5JsLU74Xoxi9ynr1joPodpOys8lfH4tbIb4EqCsoSOYvhzNVyiizj6bbzijBHEi6xst/CGtN4CwgFYIjsf1H66VMDcl63YFFGYzJJN5S1jLrymz9yHYWS1jIaxpJBfSdNKbLaQ45fOQsV+WlHwolWy9Uid0FwGCJW3U8T+NjeP7swOBNvPZaiiSilO9IGTvSasIhv+QVHhrhXKu5BpKOGzT2g4Eo4qA2rhdKO3dH2G4e+S1l1ul4SpcCDESFCenWKOWTsp/kJgJNxrYTkKKPn8wEkK5iNEdxA50gPn1Vd9c814aAEY2ve6COEPdqtypxj2wM02EhG/eNLSw==
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ndmsvnpf103.ndc.nasa.gov 0D4DA4018394
Andy,
Thanks for the guidance on the python-flask software package. I’ve passed your insight on to the network security team where this particular perfsonar server sits and their response is “OK it’s no rush”. I don’t know what methods are used to the scan the systems on their network but for now I’m not planning to install a fresh python package replacement for python-flask – particularly since Centos hasn’t included the latest version in their repo.
Thanks again, George
From: Andrew Lake <>
Hi,
That package comes from a CentOS repo, it is not one we maintain. It’s possible CentOS will backport a change, but not sure how quickly that always happens for the medium issues like that one.
I’m also not sure how the scanner in question is locating the vulnerability, but if it is just looking at version it’s likely not getting the whole picture since CentOS backports the patches. As is the case with most CentOS packages, the base version of the package is older but they backport patches for vulnerabilities. CentOS last updated that package a couple months ago, so it is still getting maintained. I can’t figure out a CVE that corresponds to the info provided by the scanner, so I am having trouble determining if it was already patched.
The next version of perfSONAR (4.3) moves to python3 and thus will move ahead that package. That’s getting close to beta, and we’d rather not risk moving past the supported CentOS version since we then inherit responsibility of backporting more serious issues when they arise and likely RedHat/CentOS will be faster than us in those cases.
Thanks, Andy
On July 8, 2020 at 11:02:10 AM, Uhl, George D. (GSFC-423.0)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.] () wrote:
|
- [perfsonar-user] python-flask vulnerability, Uhl, George D. (GSFC-423.0)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.], 07/08/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] python-flask vulnerability, Andrew Lake, 07/08/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] [EXTERNAL] Re: python-flask vulnerability, Uhl, George D. (GSFC-423.0)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.], 07/09/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] python-flask vulnerability, Andrew Lake, 07/08/2020
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.