Skip to content
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

Log4js Vulnerability #659

Closed
shirblc opened this issue Apr 3, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #660
Closed

Log4js Vulnerability #659

shirblc opened this issue Apr 3, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #660

Comments

@shirblc
Copy link
Contributor

shirblc commented Apr 3, 2022

Description

Looks like the current version of karma-viewport depends on a vulnerable version of log4js. It also seems that karma-viewport depends on quite a few outdated packages. I know this isn’t production dependency so it’s probably not critical, but it would be really great to have updated sub-dependencies & dependencies… Is there any chance they (or at least log4js) can be upgraded, @squidfunk?

Expected behavior

To have non-vulnerable dependencies.

Actual behavior

There’s a vulnerable version of log4js.

Steps to reproduce the bug

  1. Install karma-viewport in a project. You’ll see the npm audit alert.

Package versions

  • karma-viewport: 1.0.8
  • karma: 6.3.17

System information

  • OS: macOS / Linux 20.04
  • Browser: Chromium
@squidfunk
Copy link
Owner

squidfunk commented Apr 3, 2022

Thanks for reporting. I'm low on time, but I'm happy to collaborate on a PR if you want to help out. I can issue a new release after we upgraded the dependencies and fixed the vulnerabilities.

Edit: note that we need to make sure that the tests pass – they're currently commented out due to issues with Sauce Labs. Unit and integration tests should pass:

"test": "make test",
"test:integration": "make test-integration",

@shirblc
Copy link
Contributor Author

shirblc commented Apr 3, 2022

Yeah, sure, happy to help. I'll look at it now and hopefully PR later today.

Good to know about tests (was wondering about why they're commented out). I'll make sure the tests pass and I'll see if I can get it working without Sauce Labs (if that's okay). Was there a reason for choosing Sauce Labs? Not familiar with them so I don't know if there's an advantage to them or something special that they can do... Just wondering

@squidfunk
Copy link
Owner

Was there a reason for choosing Sauce Labs? Not familiar with them so I don't know if there's an advantage to them or something special that they can do... Just wondering

The reason to use SauceLabs (or BrowserStack) was to test on browsers that can't be run in headless mode like Internet Explorer 11, which karma-viewport actually supports. All browsers that are supported were listed in this configuration file. Since IE is history now, I'd say it's okay to replace SauceLabs with the headless strategy you implemented in #660.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants