Bug 1267938 - (CVE-2015-7611) CVE-2015-7611 apache-james-project: arbitrary command execution for servers configured with file based user repositories
CVE-2015-7611 apache-james-project: arbitrary command execution for servers c...
Status: NEW
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
unspecified
All Linux
high Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
impact=important,public=20150930,repo...
: Security
Depends On: 1267939
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2015-10-01 08:21 EDT by Martin Prpič
Modified: 2015-10-01 08:38 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: apache-james-project 2.3.2.1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Martin Prpič 2015-10-01 08:21:27 EDT
A flaw was found in Apache James Server:

Apache James Server 2.3.2 has security issue that can let a user execute arbitrary system command for servers configured with file based user repositories.

2.3.2 users should upgrade to 2.3.2.1 to be downloaded from http://james.apache.org/download.cgi#Apache_James_Server

References:

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q3/655
Comment 1 Martin Prpič 2015-10-01 08:22:02 EDT
Created apache-james-project tracking bugs for this issue:

Affects: fedora-all [bug 1267939]
Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2015-10-01 08:28:37 EDT
Is there CVE number available?
Comment 3 Martin Prpič 2015-10-01 08:33:30 EDT
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #2)
> Is there CVE number available?

Not that I'm aware of. I assume one will be assigned per the posting on oss-sec (http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q3/655).
Comment 4 Martin Prpič 2015-10-01 08:37:57 EDT
(In reply to Martin Prpic from comment #3)
> (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #2)
> > Is there CVE number available?
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. I assume one will be assigned per the posting on
> oss-sec (http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q3/655).

Ha, and right after I replied, I noticed MITRE assigned one :)

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q4/0

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