Skip to content

Update request dependency to version ≥ 2.74.0 - #1000

Closed
evilaliv3 wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
evilaliv3:security-fix/update-request-dependency
Closed

evilaliv3 wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
evilaliv3:security-fix/update-request-dependency

Conversation

@evilaliv3

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This update is to address a security vulnerability allowing potential remote memory exposure on request<=2.68

Details at: https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:request:20160119

This update is to address a security vulnerability allowing potential remote memory exposure on request<=2.68

Details: https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:request:20160119
@Fishrock123

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

cc @rvagg & @bnoordhuis

@bnoordhuis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

LGTM, I guess, but it's not like we use request in a way that makes it susceptible to that vulnerability.

@evilaliv3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

it is not you @bnoordhuis but in case the library is used in other projects (like fsevents) you end in suggesting the vulnerable version in the packages resolution and so possibly injecting that version in who uses you.

@bnoordhuis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

You mean because of npm@3 de-duping dependencies? node-gyp accepts a broad range so I don't think it matters as long as other modules don't explicitly depend on vulnerable versions.

The same is true of fsevents, any [email protected] satisfies its constraints. Or rather, it satisfies node-pre-gyp's constraints - fsevents itself doesn't depend on request.

@evilaliv3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

ah ok this is a better explanation that i think it is solved.

if there is no way to exclude a version ok i think with this clarification any user would be able to check that the right version is used.

@bnoordhuis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'll go ahead and close, I think we have consensus that no changes are necessary in node-gyp.

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis closed this Oct 7, 2016
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.

3 participants