Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 1052102 - (CVE-2014-0012) CVE-2014-0012 python-jinja2: FileSystemBytecodeCache insecure cache temporary file use, incorrect CVE-2014-1402 fix
CVE-2014-0012 python-jinja2: FileSystemBytecodeCache insecure cache temporary...
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
unspecified
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
impact=moderate,public=20140111,repor...
: Security
Depends On: 1051427
Blocks: 1051429
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-01-13 05:29 EST by Ratul Gupta
Modified: 2016-04-26 23:19 EDT (History)
28 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-16 14:00:28 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Debian BTS 734956 None None None Never

  None (edit)
Description Ratul Gupta 2014-01-13 05:29:54 EST
An insecure temporary file creation vulnerability was introduced in Jinja2 in the fix for CVE-2014-1402 through the commit:
https://github.com/mitsuhiko/jinja2/commit/acb672b6a179567632e032f547582f30fa2f4aa7

References:
http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q1/73
Comment 1 Ratul Gupta 2014-01-13 05:32:35 EST
Acknowledgement:

This issue was discovered by Arun Babu Neelicattu of the Red Hat Security Response Team.
Comment 3 Ratul Gupta 2014-01-13 05:50:59 EST
Statement:

Not vulnerable. This issue did not affect the versions of python-jinja2 as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 as it did not include the patch that introduced this flaw.
Comment 8 Tomas Hoger 2014-01-27 11:14:31 EST
This issue has pretty much identical impact to the original issue - file overwrites typical for temporary file handling issues, or application using spoofed cache file.  As Jinja2 cache files contain python bytecode that is executed by Jinja2, there's a risk of direct code execution impact as a consequence of this flaw.
Comment 9 Tomas Hoger 2014-01-27 11:27:27 EST
Bug 1051421 comment 20 has few notes on how upstream fix used in Jinja2 2.7.2 changes impact of the issue.
Comment 10 Tomas Hoger 2014-01-27 12:08:17 EST
This patch used in Debian packages:

http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/jinja2/2.7.2-2/fix_CVE-2014-0012.patch

or this upstream pull request:

https://github.com/mitsuhiko/jinja2/pull/292

both use tempfile.mkdtemp() to create directory used to store cache files.  That does not seem like a viable approach, as previously discussed in bug 1051421 comment 12.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.