Hi Salvatore,

I see in the latest secdb provided by Debian marks these are vulnerable, but 
ignored. Can Debian update documentation to make clear that open + ignored is a 
form of not-vulnerable? In my understanding, the term ignored does not imply 
that the vulnerability was not valid / did not apply.

Pulled from here:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/data/json

The data shows this as an open, unresolved vulnerability in Bookworm and 
Bullseye for zip.
e.g. cat debian-security-tracker.json| jq '.zlib."CVE-2023-45853"'


  "releases": {
    "bookworm": {
      "status": "open",
      "repositories": {
        "bookworm": "1:1.2.13.dfsg-1"
      },
      "urgency": "not yet assigned",
      "nodsa": "contrib/minizip not built and src:zlib not producing binary 
packages",
      "nodsa_reason": "ignored"
    },
    "bullseye": {
      "status": "open",
      "repositories": {
        "bullseye": "1:1.2.11.dfsg-2+deb11u2",
        "bullseye-security": "1:1.2.11.dfsg-2+deb11u2"
      },
      "urgency": "not yet assigned",
      "nodsa": "contrib/minizip not built and src:zlib not producing binary 
packages",
      "nodsa_reason": "ignored"
    },

I can always ask our vendors to re-examine, but it would be helpful if this was 
explicitly called out that it is ignored because it is not vulnerable as the 
package currently stands.


> On Oct 27, 2024, at 2:13 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 08:42:28AM -0400, Mike Brancato wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Several security databases flag Debian Bookworm and Bullseye as vulnerable 
>> to a critical severity vulnerability in minizip as part of zlib. In the 
>> tracker for CVE-2023-45853, the notes seem to already capture that they are 
>> not vulnerable. But the table and the reported data shows vulnerable.
>> 
>> The author has clarified multiple times that zlib is not vulnerable for 
>> these, and has stated there is no minizip code in these packages. The author 
>> also appears to have reached out to the Debian security team, and was 
>> rejected? Other distributions do not mark this code as vulnerable.
>> 
>> If this *is* vulnerable, can the fix just be back ported to the version used 
>> in Bullseye and Bookworm?
>> 
>> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2023-45853
>> 
>> https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/843#issuecomment-1987681984
>> https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/843#issuecomment-2010683088
>> https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/843#issuecomment-2050417533
> 
> The tracking here is already correct. The shipped source is affected
> but the security impact is not present, as binaries are not built.
> this is already sufficiently reflected with the ignored note. 
> 
> Security-scanner often ignore this assessment, this might be why you
> are asking? In such case ask your vendor of your security scanner to
> include assessment of the <ignored> (explanation) tag.
> 
> Thanks already,
> Regards,
> Salvatore

Reply via email to