Bug#576466: iceweasel: CVE-2009-0777 address bar spoofing

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:37:57AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 12:00:35AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:39:06AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 05:52:13PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > package: iceweasel
> > > > severity: important
> > > > version: 3.0.6-3
> > > > tags: security
> > > > 
> > > > hi, iceweasel in lenny is still vulnerable to an address bar spoofing
> > > > vulnerability, that was fixed in an MFSA a while back.  this is
> > > > probably not worth fixing on its own, but if there are other pending
> > > > security backports, it would be useful to fix it.  see:
> > > > 
> > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=452979
> > > > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0777
> > > 
> > > Damn.
> > > 
> > > Here is what I wrote in October, with Moritz's answer following:
> > > 
> > > >> Now, wondering on http://security-tracker.debian.org/ I saw that I
> > > >> forgot CVE-2009-0777 :( It was fixed on 3.0.7-1 in unstable, but maybe
> > > >> it was decided to keep it for later, in which case we just forgot it,
> > > >> later... a bit like #512111.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we should do an iceweasel security update for this one... (it's
> > > >> a
> > > >> browser issue, not a xulrunner one)
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, we indeed missed it. But since it's a low severity issue let's
> > > > postpone
> > > > it for the next round of issues affecting Iceweasel.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, there hasn't been a next round of issues affecting
> > > Iceweasel only.
> > 
> > I don't think anything has really changed, if there's a more severe issue
> > we can fix it along, but we don't need a iceweasel update on it's own.
> 
> It is likely there will be no such severe issue in the near future.
> OTOH, I'm considering uploading a proposed-update to fix the
> safebrowsing support (phishing and malware "detection"), which doesn't
> work in stable. Do you think this is something we may want to fix as
> part of a DSA ?

I don't think this warrants a DSA, we have several open issues which require
more attention currently.

Cheers,
        Moritz