-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
🔐 Update dependencies to fix vulnerabilities #89
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ | ||
| # Udf Debugging Java 0.6.21, released 2026-09-14 | ||
|
|
||
| Code name: Fixed vulnerability CVE-2026-86231 in com.github.mwiede:jsch:jar:2.28.4:provided | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| This release fixes the following vulnerability: | ||
|
|
||
| ### CVE-2026-86231 (CWE-298) in dependency `com.github.mwiede:jsch:jar:2.28.4:provided` | ||
| A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component. | ||
| #### References | ||
| * https://guide.sonatype.com/vulnerability/CVE-2026-86231?component-type=maven&component-name=com.github.mwiede%2Fjsch&utm_source=ossindex-client&utm_medium=integration&utm_content=1.8.1 | ||
| * http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2026-86231 | ||
| * https://github.com/mwiede/jsch/issues/1091 | ||
| * https://github.com/mwiede/jsch/pull/1098 | ||
| * https://github.com/mwiede/jsch/releases/tag/jsch-2.28.6 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Security | ||
|
|
||
| * #88: Fixed vulnerability CVE-2026-86231 in dependency `com.github.mwiede:jsch:jar:2.28.4:provided` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Dependency Updates | ||
|
|
||
| ### Compile Dependency Updates | ||
|
|
||
| * Updated `com.exasol:bucketfs-java:4.0.0` to `5.0.0` | ||
| * Updated `org.slf4j:slf4j-jdk14:2.0.18` to `2.0.19` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Test Dependency Updates | ||
|
|
||
| * Updated `com.exasol:exasol-testcontainers:7.3.0` to `8.0.2` | ||
| * Updated `com.exasol:test-db-builder-java:4.0.1` to `4.0.2` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Plugin Dependency Updates | ||
|
|
||
| * Updated `com.exasol:error-code-crawler-maven-plugin:2.1.0` to `2.1.1` | ||
| * Updated `com.exasol:project-keeper-maven-plugin:5.7.3` to `5.7.5` | ||
| * Updated `io.github.git-commit-id:git-commit-id-maven-plugin:10.0.0` to `10.0.1` | ||
| * Updated `org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-toolchains-plugin:3.2.0` to `3.3.0` | ||
| * Updated `org.codehaus.mojo:flatten-maven-plugin:1.7.3` to `1.8.0` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Clarity: I know that is text from the original description. Without context it might be confusing to users as they might read this as if it were their job to update. I think an additional sentence in the summary might set this straight.
Meta problem: formulations like these might appear in other CVE descriptions, so we should better add that explanatory sentence to the workflow.