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

Bump gopkg.in/yaml.v2 to v2.2.3 #1188

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 31, 2020
Merged

Conversation

theoretick
Copy link
Contributor

@theoretick theoretick commented Sep 18, 2020

What type of PR is this?

Bumps patch version to address gopkg.in/yaml.v2 vulnerability making library susceptible to billion laughs attack

  • bug
  • cleanup
  • documentation
  • feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

I took a look through the yaml loader module and I do not think the library is high risk of this flaw due to the inherent risks of untrusted user input, but it should likely be bumped to at least the fixed patch version to mitigate. While I deemed it low-risk, my apologies for the full disclosure here if not preferred. I did not find a security disclosure policy or contribution docs, but it would be excellent if a policy could be documented as a side-effect to this pull request.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

No open issue.

Special notes for your reviewer:

I bumped to only the minimum version to address the existing vulnerability, but happy to go to the latest patch (looks like v.2.3.0) if desired!

Testing

go test passes but no additional test cases ran.

Release Notes

- Bump dependency `gopkg.in/yaml.v2` to patch `v2.2.3`

@theoretick theoretick requested a review from a team as a code owner September 18, 2020 16:25
@theoretick theoretick requested review from saschagrunert and asahasrabuddhe and removed request for a team September 18, 2020 16:25
@theoretick
Copy link
Contributor Author

@saschagrunert @asahasrabuddhe would either of you have a chance to review this minor dependency bump?

@theoretick
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rliebz I see there is also a check failing for Codecov, should I be concerned about that or is there any additional actions needed here? Looks like it's failing in the other PRs as well

@rliebz
Copy link
Member

rliebz commented Sep 29, 2020

@theoretick Nope, it's not a required check. Totally fine to ignore.

Copy link
Member

@asahasrabuddhe asahasrabuddhe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@rliebz rliebz merged commit 5fed9f1 into urfave:master Oct 31, 2020
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