1566043 - Update vulnerable lodash dependency in eslint-plugin-mozilla

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Developer Infrastructure :: Lint and Formatting, defect)

Description

[Christiane Ruetten [INACTIVE]]

The lodash team released a security update for a critical prototype pollution vulnerability that can lead to remote code execution.

• https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/4348
• https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4336
• https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4355

Only the latest release of lodash is not vulnerable. Please update dependencies to the latest release version, or at least verify that our code does not expose the vulnerability to untrusted input. (If not, I'd advise to update anyway.)

The non-vulnerable release versions are:

• lodash 4.17.14
• lodash.merge 4.6.2
• lodash.template 4.5.0

Any older releases contain the vulnerable code.

I'm assuming that this lodash code is not actually shipping. Please report back here if it is.

• List of files referencing lodash

Comment 1

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

I can take this. Shouldn't be a big issue to update. Note this is developer-only stuff.

I'll update the package lists for eslint-plugin-mozilla and the top-level, as it is easier to do them at the same time.

Comment 2

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(In reply to Christiane Ruetten [:cr] from comment #0)

• List of files referencing lodash

This link points to gfx. I assume it was meant to point to eslint-plugin-mozilla.

Comment 3

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Attachment: Bug 1566043 - Update npm dependencies for ESLint. r?ahal

Comment 4

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Christiane, Presumably as this relates to developer only tooling, we can land it any time we need to, without requesting security approval?

Should we land through autoland, or direct on central? I guess we want this on branches as well?

Comment 5

[Christiane Ruetten [INACTIVE]]

we can land it any time we need to, without requesting security approval?

I'm not aware of the requirements the linter team has established around landing code. From a security perspective, there wouldn't be much to review in this version bump.

Comment 6

[Christiane Ruetten [INACTIVE]]

Right, Searchfox link should have been this one.

Comment 7

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Thanks, I'll get this landed.

Comment 8

[Sebastian Hengst [:aryx] (needinfo me if it's about an intermittent or backout)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/a0b40816521ed1d3cc9f25f22496f8358e51b4ea
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a0b40816521e

Comment 9

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Does this need backport?

Comment 10

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

I've pushed this to beta as NPOTB as it was a simple update.

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/5def55cc75a70465407ab31228c77c6dd7bec349

I was thinking about skipping release as there shouldn't be many developers using that, and I suspect the only way this could be exploited is by getting something into the appropriate tree.

However, it might be worth doing this on esr, just so we're not raising any concerns there. I'll see if I can get a patch spun up.

Comment 11

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Attachment: Bug 1566043 - Update npm dependencies for ESLint. r?ahal

Comment 12

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

And now on ESR:

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr68/rev/0bd8c1e52943ae122f9571a9a61c1a7fad7a7ee9

Comment 13

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Doesn't sound likely that we need to worry about ESR60 here, but feel free to change that if that's incorrect.