Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix security vulnerabilities in Rack, FFI, and Jekyll #105

Merged

Conversation

Mr0grog
Copy link
Member

@Mr0grog Mr0grog commented Feb 6, 2019

This fixes CVE-2018-16471 (a vulnerability in Rack), CVE-2018-1000201 (a vulnerability in FFI), and CVE-2018-17567 (a vulnerability in Jekyll) by upgrading all those gems.

I’m not really sure whether we are actually vulnerable to those (we have setup for running a live server on Heroku, which would be vulnerable, and a description for serving static files, which would not), so it seemed worth updating just in case. I verified that the generated static file bundle is identical to what I get when building the master branch, so this should be OK.

NOTE: I upgraded Jekyll to the latest, rather than just what was needed to address the vulnerability, since the 2.6.x line, which would have been the minimal update, breaks our URLs (Fixed here: jekyll/jekyll#6459 and jekyll/jekyll#6475, originally introduced in the fix to jekyll/jekyll#6222 (comment)). Everything works correctly in 2.8.x again.

We upgraded Jekyll to 2.6.3 (a minor version upgrade from 2.4.3) to fix a security vulnerability, but the entire 2.6.x line has a bug with how URLs are handled in the built-in web server. (Fixed here: jekyll/jekyll#6459 and jekyll/jekyll#6475, originally introduced in the fix to jekyll/jekyll#6222 (comment)).

Anyway, 2.8.5 includes a fix and generates an identical `_site` directory on disk, so should be all good.
@Mr0grog
Copy link
Member Author

Mr0grog commented Feb 6, 2019

NOTE: If we are running this in production with a live server, someone will need to make sure it’s updated after merging this.

@dcwalk
Copy link
Contributor

dcwalk commented Feb 7, 2019

Reviewed this PR and happy to merge, don't think a redeploy is essential as we only upload the static site files.

That said, I don't have access to redeploy to production any more (@lightandluck -- it is thru Namecheap), and it might be a nice flow for the folks with that responsibility to review and merge?

@lightandluck
Copy link
Member

I'm working on getting Jonathan access to the namecheap cPanel, and will walk through the instructions together with him so there's multiple people who will be able to do this

@Mr0grog
Copy link
Member Author

Mr0grog commented Feb 7, 2019

Oh yeah, this would be a perfect use-case for him walking through all that :D

@lightandluck lightandluck merged commit c0a4e50 into master Feb 8, 2019
@lightandluck
Copy link
Member

Redeployed successfully 🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants