Closed valugi closed 4 years ago
Hi @valugi. Thank you for your report. To help us process this issue please make sure that you provided the following information:
Please make sure that the issue is reproducible on the vanilla Magento instance following Steps to reproduce. To deploy vanilla Magento instance on our environment, please, add a comment to the issue:
@magento give me 2.4-develop instance
- upcoming 2.4.x release
For more details, please, review the Magento Contributor Assistant documentation.
@valugi do you confirm that you were able to reproduce the issue on vanilla Magento instance following steps to reproduce?
Hi @engcom-Bravo. Thank you for working on this issue. In order to make sure that issue has enough information and ready for development, please read and check the following instruction: :point_down:
[ ] 1. Verify that issue has all the required information. (Preconditions, Steps to reproduce, Expected result, Actual result).Details
If the issue has a valid description, the label Issue: Format is valid
will be added to the issue automatically. Please, edit issue description if needed, until label Issue: Format is valid
appears.
[ ] 2. Verify that issue has a meaningful description and provides enough information to reproduce the issue. If the report is valid, add Issue: Clear Description
label to the issue by yourself.
[ ] 3. Add Component: XXXXX
label(s) to the ticket, indicating the components it may be related to.
[ ] 4. Verify that the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop
branchDetails
- Add the comment @magento give me 2.4-develop instance
to deploy test instance on Magento infrastructure.
- If the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop
branch, please, add the label Reproduced on 2.4.x
.
- If the issue is not reproducible, add your comment that issue is not reproducible and close the issue and stop verification process here!
[ ] 5. Add label Issue: Confirmed
once verification is complete.
[ ] 6. Make sure that automatic system confirms that report has been added to the backlog.
Hello @sdzhepa
This issue looks like a feature request, can you please move this to a propper repository?
Thank you
hi @engcom-Bravo, If you treat this as a feature request it will be implemented only for the future versions. But this is a bug - a security bug - for the existing versions and should be patched in 2.2 and 2.3, not in 2.4 or above. Regards
Hi @sdzhepa. Thank you for working on this issue. In order to make sure that issue has enough information and ready for development, please read and check the following instruction: :point_down:
[ ] 1. Verify that issue has all the required information. (Preconditions, Steps to reproduce, Expected result, Actual result).Details
If the issue has a valid description, the label Issue: Format is valid
will be added to the issue automatically. Please, edit issue description if needed, until label Issue: Format is valid
appears.
[ ] 2. Verify that issue has a meaningful description and provides enough information to reproduce the issue. If the report is valid, add Issue: Clear Description
label to the issue by yourself.
[ ] 3. Add Component: XXXXX
label(s) to the ticket, indicating the components it may be related to.
[ ] 4. Verify that the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop
branchDetails
- Add the comment @magento give me 2.4-develop instance
to deploy test instance on Magento infrastructure.
- If the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop
branch, please, add the label Reproduced on 2.4.x
.
- If the issue is not reproducible, add your comment that issue is not reproducible and close the issue and stop verification process here!
[ ] 5. Add label Issue: Confirmed
once verification is complete.
[ ] 6. Make sure that automatic system confirms that report has been added to the backlog.
@magento-engcom-team, this is a security issue. While this ticket, could use some improved documentation, Google itself recognizes this as a security flaw. This blantent notice looks bad for Magento. While I don’t agree it should be ported back to 2.2 versions, I do believe it should be in 2.3 as this issue presented itself in 2.3 and I’d like to see us move forward.
I cannot believe this is still open. Please update asap.
1. A security scan shows that the version of jQuery has known vulnerabilities: * jQuery 1.12.4
This was patched directly in the file.
I guess you mean this and a few others: https://github.com/magento/magento2/pull/22418
1. Have a newer version of jQuery, possibly the latest
The newer releases break existing code.
As no details were provided about the exact problem (which CVE IDs are not fixed in our version) I think we can close this for now.
Still, most of the code still relies on jQuery 1.x and I think there were some PRs to make code compatible with jQuery 3 but would be a breaking change then.
Additionally I host patched versions at https://github.com/DanielRuf/snyk-js-jquery-174006/ and https://github.com/DanielRuf/snyk-js-jquery-565129
Q2 2021 and Magento 2.4.2 still uses jQuery 1
Magento 2.4.2-p1. Quick Lighthouse scan:
Library Version | Vulnerability Count | Highest Severity |
---|---|---|
jQuery@1.12.4 | 4 | Medium |
jQuery UI@1.10.4 | 1 | High |
Make it a core setting in the backend or env: Required jQuery version: 1/ 2/ 3 Required jQuery UI version: etc. New stores can go for the newer versions of jquery. Older shops with older themes and functionality that would break keep it v1.
Magento 2.4.2-p1. Quick Lighthouse scan:
Lighthouse outputs these depending on the detected version number. It does not detect the manual changes in the jQuery files. Please check the files in the repo, in your projekt and see my last comments regarding the fixed problems.
@DanielRuf Thanks. I will check. Do you think this would affect SEO results as Google sees it as a high risk. Their system doesn't notice the patches.
Do you think this would affect SEO results as Google sees it as a high risk.
No, I don't think so. Security itself has nothing to do with offsite or onsite SEO and I am not aware of any penalties due to outdated and insecure libraries.
Their system doesn't notice the patches.
Correct, because Lighthouse just checks library name + library version and compares it with a table of known vulnerable versions (from Snyk).
See: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/blob/2511725963e8695c302095f68cc5f6a1bc393bd2/package.json#L170 https://www.npmjs.com/package/js-library-detector https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/issues/10412
Preconditions (*)
Steps to reproduce (*)
Expected result (*)
Actual result (*)