WordPress - irresponsible silent tarball updateWednesday, August 17. 2005Wednesday, August 17. 2005 It turns out, that the WordPress developers are not only slow in dealing with security holes, but totally irresponsible. It has come to my attention, that after I had disclosed to them, the obvious flaws in their security fix, they have silently replaced the release tarball of WordPress 1.5.2 with a fixed version at an unknown point in time during the last 2 days.
Please check if you have the most current version, by downloading again and comparing the MD5 hash. My vulnerable tarball had the following MD5 1adeedf43851fef40dbe6e9565131fcc wordpress-1.5.2.tar.gz the exact difference between this and the fixed version can be found within wp-settings.php.
<?php // Turn register globals off function unregister_GLOBALS() { if ( !ini_get('register_globals') ) return;
die('GLOBALS overwrite attempt detected');
$noUnset = array('GLOBALS', '_GET', '_POST', '_COOKIE', '_REQUEST', '_SERVER', '_ENV', '_FILES', 'table_prefix');
foreach ( $input as $k => $v ) if ( !in_array($k, $noUnset) && isset($GLOBALS[$k]) ) unset($GLOBALS[$k]); }
... unset( $wp_filter, $cache_userdata, $cache_lastcommentmodified, $cache_lastpostdate, $cache_settings, $category_cache, $cache_categories ); ?>
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
While the timing of the updates and such were not done in the best possible way, I would agree that communication is often an issue. I believe that your post is well-intentioned, Stefan, but when you state that the communication was not done in the interest of marketing, you are assuming you know the motives of the developers when it's likely that is not the case.
Kudos to you for not only identifying the security issue, but also for supplying a solution as well! posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
#1.1
Stefan
()
What reason could a developer have to silently fix a tarball, other than to hide it?
What reason can a developer have, other than downplaying, to announce a new version, saying that it fixes security issues, but not saying how serious they were and that everyone should upgrade asap. What reason can there be, that the WordPress developers claim in their forum, that the vulnerable tarball was only a very short time online, and that the release announcement was released after the fixed tarball. (While the timestamps of the tarball and of the blog posting that announced the new version clearly speak a different story). And yes my words are sometimes very hard, but I simply get very angry, when a PHP application that was awarded for being the best communication tool, only a few weeks ago is endangering their users in such a way. Oh yeah and before anyone believes, that I am a big WordPress hater and s9y lover. I have choosen s9y because I personally know the authors and while I dislike a lot of things in s9y, I see that they are very responsive when it comes to security issues. If you only look at the features, I cleary believe that WordPress is superior to s9y. posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
Stefan,
as has been mentioned elsewhere, at the time the tarball was updated, the release *HAD NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED*! I cannot speak for Matt's motivation in updating the tarball this way, but I'm quite sure it wasn't anything to do with marketing. It is, unfortunately, typical developer action to spot a problem (or have one pointed out), and fix it in place. This isn't the first time there have been replacements of the release tarball with no indication -- though the last time was a simple non-security bug fix. I agree that it is a bad thing to do. But the reason is poor release management not marketing or wishing to hide anything. I understand that you get angry about these things, I do too, but your wording inflames people and detracts from your message. They become defensive and attack the messenger, and ignore the message. Which makes you want to shout the message louder. Things quickly degenerate into a slanging match and the original point is lost. Try to remain more calm. You are doing an important job very well. Don't let your vital message get lost. Mike posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
#1.1.1.1
Stefan
()
Well I don't know how hard it is to see that the current tarball was build at 6:02 CET on 15th August. The original tarball has a timestamp of 21:06 CET on 14th August. 9 hours difference.
The Blog posting about WordPress 1.5.2 clearly carries a timestamp of 14th August 23:17 UTC. This is 4 hours and 45 minutes before the replacement tarball was build. Time enough for myriads of people to download it. And well obviously I found the tarball before 14th August 23:16 CET, because that was the point in time when I emailed Matt about the holes. (6 hours and 44 minutes before the replacement) He asked someting around 2:xx CET which definitievly was after 23:17 UTC on the 14th and the next morning I had a mail from him, that was sent on the 15th at 5:57 CET, saying that he fixed it. This was obviously 5 minutes before the replacement tarball was build. So if I am not a very good timetraveller someone is lieing here... posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
Stefan,
You're info on the timestamps helps a lot, thanks, and has been coroborated elsewhere. You are correct that the update does appear to be after the announcement -- but not 9 hours after (as I read your original argument to be saying). Please bear in mind that everyone's defense of this issue stems from the following single message from Matt > I can happily confirm that this is NOT an issue in 1.5.2, it was fixed > as soon as he reported it which was after my initial build but before > anyone had really downloaded it. If you were on IRC and grabbed it right > away and have register globals on and don't have mod_security you may > want to check to see if your wp-settings.php matches [2783]. So everything stems on Matt's interpretation of "as soon as". Your timings seem to show that to be over 4 hours. Perhaps we should wait to hear a proper response from Matt, before calling anymore people liars. Mike posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
Craig, while Stefan's language, as always, is not politic, he has an point, I think when you have enough coincidence of bad smells you have to say something is rotten in Denmark.
By what sort of reasonable story can security patches such as this be implemented quietly under the same version number and have such an inconsistent time discrepancy? I think Occam’s razor would reject them in favor of Stefan’s story. (BTW, I use WordPress, not Serendipity. Like Stefan, I know many of the (former?) developers of s9y, but, unlike him, I think they've taken the wrong tack.) posted on Wednesday, August 17. 2005
Stefan's language is a bit inflammatory, but I think that he has a valid point. It's not good development practice to silently rev something that is public without changing the version number. That's what the version number is for - to communicate changes so that people don't have to peek inside archives and do MD5's and such.
In the company where I work, we have tools for uploading packages to a central repository and those tools now disallow uploading a package and overwriting an already-existing version. This is because there were too many complaints from people about the chaos that this practice caused. Occam's Razor would suggest to me that this was probably more likely the result of laziness than some kind of marketing conspiracy. I would humbly suggest that the WordPress developers refrain from this practice for future issues. There is no shortage of version numbers and although it's a little bit of hassle to bump a version number for a minor change, it's the necessary thing to do when so many people depend on this software. By the way, I say this as someone who got his blog hacked because he was slow to apply one of the 1.5 dot release security upgrades. posted on Thursday, August 18. 2005
Hmmmm, the URL http://blog.php-security.org/archives/8-WordPress-developers-totally-nuts.html just became invalid and it seems that the new URL is http://blog.php-security.org/archives/8-WordPress-irresponsible-silent-tarball-update.html
Stefan, did you do this to drive your point home about how infuriating silent changes are? posted on Thursday, August 18. 2005
#3.1
Stefan
()
Marc for me the old URL still works.
I was asked to change the explicit title and I did change it, that is all. And btw: the term "Update" clearly says, that there was a change. posted on Thursday, August 18. 2005
On the issue of WP's superiority: I don't believe that. Show me a feature that Serendipity doesn't have that WP has.
And show me multilanguality, a plugin repository like Spartacus, UTF-8 support with bundled translations, shared installation, wide-spread and common templating engine (like Smarty and not some proprietary stuff), easy and multiple WYSIWYG editor deployment/embedding, built-in media database (!), category-based sub-blogs or an Planet/Aggregator with Wordpress. I don't mean to be bashing. WordPress is great competition, I don't mind anyone using it. But I think choosing it is a matter of taste and personal preference, not features or superiority. $0.02. And yeah, I'm biased. posted on Thursday, August 18. 2005
I have updated my entry to reflect the correct timeline of events.
I apologize for getting it wrong in the first place, but I don't appreciate your insinuations that I was deliberately trying to mislead people. It was an honest mistake, and I've admitted as much. I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind people making unfounded accusations. Stefan, I appreciate that you reported the bugs to us and provided fixes. And yes, I agree that we could improve our handling of "on-the-fly" updates. But I, for one, would appreciate it if you would hold back on the finger-pointing until proper communcation can be done. posted on Thursday, August 18. 2005
#6
Just Passing By
()
I hoped that I can help the situation a bit. I like to read
Stefan's blog because I can always learn something. Even though I don't use Wordpress, I've learnt about: 1) The trick concerning 'register_globals' protection (again 2) Not to release different patches under the same name and without a note entry, especially if my code are used by thousands of sites. However, I hope that being a popular blog site yourself, you'd appreciates that no matter how small, 'critical' comments adds up. To you it may be just one responsible voice, but to the recipiant facing with hundreds of daily complaints and problems, it soon become hurtful. On the HINDSIGHT, 'irresponsible' may be too harsh a word, but I hoped that Dougal don't think anything of Stefan other than just being blunt. Sorry for so many 'hope', I just whished that we can learn from one another (ideas and mistakes) instead of being annoyed or offended. posted on Friday, August 19. 2005
Add Comment
|
Calendar
Archives Categories Syndicate This Blog |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


