[GHSA-36qw-697c-h8mq] A vulnerability was found in Bitwarden up to 2.25.1. It... #5737
+20
−11
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
changed the base branch from
main
to
bwbug/advisory-improvement-5737
|
Hi @bwbug, I can't make any changes to this advisory because neither Vaulwarden nor Bitwarden are products in one of the GitHub Advisory Database's supported ecosystems. If you wish to have the CVE record corrected, I would recommend using this guide to find the contact information for VulDB, the CVE Numbering Authority for the CVE, and ask them to make a correction. Best wishes for updating the CVE record and have a good weekend! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Updates
Comments
Refer to discussion here, especially the links in this comment. The evidence that the submitter's Proof-of-Concept used Vaultwarden (not Bitwarden) can be found in the footer of the screenshots here.
Given that the submitter consistently misidentifies Vaultwarden (which is not a Bitwarden product) as "Bitwarden", their claim about having contacted the "vendor" is suspect. The "vendor" of Vaultwarden is Dani Garcia, so it is no surprise that if the submitter contacted Bitwarden Inc. or 8bit Solutions LLC about a vulnerability in a competitor's product, there would be no response.
I am unfamiliar with the various Exploitability and Impact metrics, so I have not proposed any changes in the metrics section. I changed the "severity" from "Moderate" to "Low", given that this vulnerability has only been proven in a product that has been deprecated for over 3 years.