Hacker News Reader

Comment by Macha | Hacker News Reader

It looks like Gitea made the same fix (rm -r .git after template processing) back in February: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2b...

PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734

So likely Gitea < 1.25.5 was vulnerable.

View on HN

So not "Gitea is protected against both of these issues" but "Gitea fixed these issues earlier", which kind of feels like a less marketing-friendly version of what the Gitea employee said above.

Why people can't just talk clearly and not try to oversell whatever they're doing? It's a disease at this point.

i like how this is a side effect of a bunch of assorted changes in a commit and PR solely described as "Fix path resolving" making it hard for anyone running Gitea to even know this is a security fix

It’s explicitly listed as a security fix in the release notes, accompanied by a CVE: https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.25.5/

I'm not completely sure if this is supposed to be sincere, but it should be.

It's not uncommon practice to omit the security implications on public facing commit messages when fixing secirity issues, so as to not to draw attention until it's ready for distribution.

It is unfortunate nobody tipped anyone off downstream.

CVE AND release note not enough tipping off for you?

it is absolutely not on maintainers of projects to proactively notify those who've forked the project. clear and transparent notices are exactly the right approach

Apologies I didn't see there had been a CVE. I completely retract my statement.

given the fact that they communicated about this as a CVE, and Forgejo is a fork of gitea, one could say that this is on Forgejo though.

Agreed, I didn't realise there had been a CVE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com