bittensor-drand

Problem

Software composition analysis has identified a component with one or more known severe vulnerabilities. Available threat intelligence telemetry has confirmed that the reported high or critical severity vulnerabilities are actively being exploited by malicious actors.

Problem

Software composition analysis has identified a component with one or more known vulnerabilities. Based on the CVSS scoring, these vulnerabilities have been marked as high severity.

Problem

Software license is a legal instrument that governs the use and distribution of software source code and its binary representation. Software publishers have the freedom to choose any commonly used or purposefully written license to publish their work under. While some licenses are liberal and allow almost any kind of distribution, with or without code modification, other licenses are more restrictive and impose rules for their inclusion in other software projects. Weak copyleft licenses in particular impose requirements that the user must be able to replace or update the code they apply to. In practical terms, that means the object and library files that statically link to weak copyleft code must be made available publicly. For commercial applications, this is typically undesirable. Therefore, statically linking to weak copyleft code is commonly avoided or even prohibited by the organization policy. Instead of linking statically to weak copyleft licensed code, it is recommended to isolate such code into modules that the publisher-developed, first-party code can dynamically link to without the aforementioned obligations.

Problem

Software license is a legal instrument that governs the use and distribution of software source code and its binary representation. Software publishers have the freedom to choose any commonly used or purposefully written license to publish their work under. While some licenses are liberal and allow almost any kind of distribution, with or without code modification, other licenses are more restrictive and impose rules for their inclusion in other software projects. Some software licenses place restrictions on software distribution of the code they apply to. These restrictions may extend to the services built upon the code licensed under such restrictive licenses. Some restrictive licenses explicitly state that the licensee may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the licensed software. When building commercial applications, this is typically undesirable. Therefore, the inclusion of any code that may impose limits on software distribution is commonly avoided or even prohibited by the organization policy.

Problem

Buffer overrun protection on Linux is achieved in two ways. The most common solution is to use the stack canary (also called cookie). The stack canary is a special value written onto the stack that allows the operating system to detect and terminate the program if a stack overrun occurs. In most cases, compilers will apply the stack canary conservatively in order to avoid a negative performance impact. Therefore, stack canaries are often used together with another stack overrun mitigation - fortified functions. Fortified functions are usually wrappers around standard glibc functions (such as memcpy) which perform boundary checks either at compile time or run time to determine if a memory violation has occurred. The compiler needs additional context to generate such calls (for example, array size that needs to be known at compile time). Because of this, the compiler will virtually never substitute all viable functions with their fortified counterparts in complex programs. However, when combined with the stack canary, fortified functions provide a good measure of buffer overrun protection.

Problem

Buffer overrun protection on Linux is achieved in two ways. The most common solution is to use the stack canary (also called cookie). The stack canary is a special value written onto the stack that allows the operating system to detect and terminate the program if a stack overrun occurs. In most cases, compilers will apply the stack canary conservatively in order to avoid a negative performance impact. Therefore, stack canaries are often used together with another stack overrun mitigation - fortified functions. Fortified functions are usually wrappers around standard glibc functions (such as memcpy) which perform boundary checks either at compile time or run time to determine if a memory violation has occurred. The compiler needs additional context to generate such calls (for example, array size that needs to be known at compile time). Because of this, the compiler will virtually never substitute all viable functions with their fortified counterparts in complex programs. However, when combined with the stack canary, fortified functions provide a good measure of buffer overrun protection.

Problem

Common compilers often embed source code information into executables for debugging purposes, usually by mapping symbols to source filenames or paths. While this is typically desirable in open-source software and standard tools, that information can be used to determine security weaknesses, code repository layout, trade secrets and similar sensitive information. Such symbols make it easier to reverse-engineer a closed source application.

Problem

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are structured addresses that point to locations and assets on the internet. URLs allow software developers to build complex applications that exchange data with servers that can be hosted in multiple geographical regions. URLs can commonly be found embedded in documentation, configuration files, source code and compiled binaries. A port number is associated with a network address of a host, such as an IP address, and the type of network protocol used for communication. Within URLs, the ports are optional. Ports can be specified in a URL immediately following the domain name. Each network protocol, or schema, has a set of standard ports on which the service operates. This issue is raised when a mismatch between a network protocol and its expected port number is detected. While the presence of non-standard ports does not imply malicious intent, all of their uses in a software package should be documented and approved.