Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ST
Posts
0
Comments
637
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • And which one of those are actually vulnerabilities that are exploitable? First, yes ofc unauthenticated endpoints should be fixed, but with those there is no real damage to be done.

    If you know the media path then you can request a playback, and if you get the user ids then you can get all users. That's more or less it.

    Good? No. But far from making it a poor choice exposing it.

  • Performance is not the goal, but cleaner code and more manageable code. But both will ultimately lead to better performance. As of now it was basically impossible to change something in the database structure since it was hard to estimate the impact of it.

  • Consider the 10.y.z simply to be 0.y.z and everything works out.

    Jellyfin inherited a lot of shitty code and architecture from emby. They simply cannot guarantee anything across patches until it is sorted out.

    imho much better then releasing major version after major version because the break stuff regularly.

  • Also for internal use. The original emby source used not within the code base standardized database access.

    Basically changes to the database were not possible since finding references across the code base which part uses which values was impossible.

  • Note however that the 10.Y.Z release chain represents the "cleanup" of the codebase, so it should be accepted that 10.Y.Z breaks all compatibility,

    Its right there at the link you posted.

  • And what do you suggest to use otherwise to maintain a server? I am not aware of a solution that would help here? As an attacker you could easily alias any command or even start a modified shell that logs ever keystroke and simulates the default bash/zsh or whatever.

  • The scenario OC stated is that if the attacker has access to the user on the server then the attacker would still need the sudo password in order to get root privileges, contrary to direct root login where the attack has direct access to root privileges.

    So, now i am looking into this scenario where the attack is on the server with the user privileges: the attacker now modifies for example the bashrc to alias sudo to extract the password once the user runs sudo.

    So the sudo password does not have any meaningful protection, other then maybe adding a time variable which is when the user accesses the server and runs sudo

  • Most comments here suggest 3 things

    1. least privilege: Which is ok, but on a Server any modification you do requires root anyway, there is usually very little benefit
    2. Additional protection through required sudo password: This is for example easily circumvented by modifying the bashrc or similar with an sudo alias to get the password
    3. Multiuser & audittrails: yes this is a valid point, on a system that is modified or administered by multiple ppl there are various reasons lime access logging and UAC for that

    An actual person from the pen testing world: https://youtu.be/fKuqYQdqRIs