Closed
Bug 102141
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
[security] When changing a bug the Product: list has options the user doesn't have access to.
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, defect, P1)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16
People
(Reporter: george.hotelling, Assigned: george.hotelling)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: applied to 2.14.1)
Attachments
(2 files, 5 obsolete files)
2.38 KB,
patch
|
bbaetz
:
review+
caillon
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
313 bytes,
patch
|
justdave
:
review+
bbaetz
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
If a bug is created in the product Foo, a user with Foo Bug Access will be able to see other products in the Product pulldown menu in show_bug.cgi. I can reproduce it by doing the following: 1. Create a user Alice who has only Foo Bugs Access, and no other permissions checked. 2. Alice submits a bug for the Foo product. 3. Alice views the bug at show_bug.cgi 4. Alice selects the Product pulldown menu (normally used to change which product a bug belongs to) and sees that products Bar and Baz also exist. Instead, Bugzilla should only display products that Alice has access to. In this case the only Foo should be displayed.
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
OS: Windows 2000 → OpenBSD
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
confirmed. nifty, we missed one. :(
Severity: normal → critical
Priority: -- → P1
Whiteboard: security
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Updated•23 years ago
|
OS: OpenBSD → All
Hardware: PC → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
I took most of the code for my patch from enter_bug.cgi. This is my first time playing with the bugzilla code so please double or triple check my work.
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
George, can you attach a unified version of your patch? ("cvs diff -u")
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
We should factor out the common code. My idea: wait for the enter_bug.cgi templatisation to land and then make a patch factoring it out into some common file. Gerv
Updated•22 years ago
|
Severity: critical → blocker
Updated•22 years ago
|
Summary: When changing a bug the Product: list has options the user doesn't have access to. → [security] When changing a bug the Product: list has options the user doesn't have access to.
Comment 7•22 years ago
|
||
This patch is identical to the one above, but it applies cleanly. Not sure what was wrong with the above one, but patch complained about garbage in the file and wasn't able to determine what file was being patched.
Attachment #51521 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #51609 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 58650 [details] [diff] [review] same as previous, but applies cleanly r= justdave it works as advertised, tried it on my local install.
Attachment #58650 -
Flags: review+
Comment 9•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 58650 [details] [diff] [review] same as previous, but applies cleanly I'm retracting my review... scenario: User does not have access to the product the bug is in. Either the product bit on the bug was turned off, or the cc_accessible bit is on and the user was CCed on the bug. If the user looks at the bug, it's not going to show the product the bug is in, and it's also going to force the user to change the product to something he does have access to if he tries to edit the bug. It needs to add the current product to the @products list, even if the user can't see it.
Attachment #58650 -
Flags: review+ → review-
Comment 10•22 years ago
|
||
This one ensures that the product being checked isn't the current product before removing it from consideration for the @product list.
Attachment #58650 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 11•22 years ago
|
||
This one, besides avoiding removing the product from the list if the product the bug is already in has disallownew set, also redoes the patch to conform to style guidelines (no tabs, 4-space indent, uncuddled else)
Attachment #58658 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 12•22 years ago
|
||
Attachment #58659 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 13•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 58660 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v4 - adds a comment I forgot. :) r=bbaetz (finally :) I can't test this ATM, though, so the second reviewer will have to.
Attachment #58660 -
Flags: review+
Comment 14•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 58660 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v4 - adds a comment I forgot. :) Code looks solid and it works great. I tested it with a user on another bug, and a user on the current bug. I also tested with disallownew set. r=caillon
Attachment #58660 -
Flags: review+
Comment 16•22 years ago
|
||
reassigning to the original author so we have a contributor record
Assignee: justdave → george.hotelling
Comment 17•22 years ago
|
||
checked in on the trunk: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/bug_form.pl,v <-- bug_form.pl new revision: 1.84; previous revision: 1.83 checked in on the 2.14.1 security release branch: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/bug_form.pl,v <-- bug_form.pl new revision: 1.70.2.1; previous revision: 1.70
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•22 years ago
|
Whiteboard: security → applied to 2.14.1
Comment 18•22 years ago
|
||
This patch created a bug when there is only one product defined. No "product" HTML form variable was set in show_bug.cgi, thus process_bug.cgi would trip around line 139 since $::FORM{'product'} woudl not equal $::oldproduct: if ( ($::FORM{'id'} && $::FORM{'product'} ne $::oldproduct) || (!$::FORM{'id'} && $::FORM{'product'} ne $::dontchange) ) { I will be attaching a small patch shortly that will fix this issue by setting a hidden form variable named "product" when only one product exists.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 19•22 years ago
|
||
Patch to fix the issue when only one product is defined in Bugzilla. This patch should be applied after Patch v.4 (attachment 58660 [details] [diff] [review]).
Comment 20•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 60249 [details] [diff] [review] Fix v.1 to Patch v.4 pretty obvious :) r=justdave
Attachment #60249 -
Flags: review+
Comment 21•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 60249 [details] [diff] [review] Fix v.1 to Patch v.4 r=bbaetz for 2.14.1 and trunk. Untested but obvious; justdave says he has tested, though.
Attachment #60249 -
Flags: review+
Comment 22•22 years ago
|
||
Checked in on the trunk: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/bug_form.pl,v <-- bug_form.pl new revision: 1.85; previous revision: 1.84 and on the 2.14.1 branch: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/bug_form.pl,v <-- bug_form.pl new revision: 1.70.2.2; previous revision: 1.70.2.1
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 23•22 years ago
|
||
Hmm, it seems the bulk change thinks I'm not changing anything if all I do is add names to the CC list, so I guess I have to make a comment. Anyhow, adding the representatives from the organizations we know of that support Bugzilla distributions so they're aware of our upcoming security release
Comment 24•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 126363 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•11 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•