Skip to content

[AutoPR- Security] Patch squid for CVE-2026-50012, CVE-2026-47729 [MEDIUM]#18048

Draft
azurelinux-security wants to merge 1 commit into
microsoft:3.0-devfrom
azurelinux-security:azure-autosec/squid/3.0/1161817
Draft

[AutoPR- Security] Patch squid for CVE-2026-50012, CVE-2026-47729 [MEDIUM]#18048
azurelinux-security wants to merge 1 commit into
microsoft:3.0-devfrom
azurelinux-security:azure-autosec/squid/3.0/1161817

Conversation

@azurelinux-security

@azurelinux-security azurelinux-security commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Auto Patch squid for CVE-2026-50012, CVE-2026-47729.

Autosec pipeline run -> https://dev.azure.com/mariner-org/mariner/_build/results?buildId=1161817&view=results

Merge Checklist

All boxes should be checked before merging the PR (just tick any boxes which don't apply to this PR)

  • The toolchain has been rebuilt successfully (or no changes were made to it)
  • The toolchain/worker package manifests are up-to-date
  • Any updated packages successfully build (or no packages were changed)
  • Packages depending on static components modified in this PR (Golang, *-static subpackages, etc.) have had their Release tag incremented.
  • Package tests (%check section) have been verified with RUN_CHECK=y for existing SPEC files, or added to new SPEC files
  • All package sources are available
  • cgmanifest files are up-to-date and sorted (./cgmanifest.json, ./toolkit/scripts/toolchain/cgmanifest.json, .github/workflows/cgmanifest.json)
  • LICENSE-MAP files are up-to-date (./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/data/licenses.json, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSE-EXCEPTIONS.PHOTON)
  • All source files have up-to-date hashes in the *.signatures.json files
  • sudo make go-tidy-all and sudo make go-test-coverage pass
  • Documentation has been updated to match any changes to the build system
  • Ready to merge

Summary

What does the PR accomplish, why was it needed?

  • Auto Patch squid for CVE-2026-50012 (MEDIUM), CVE-2026-47729 (MEDIUM).
Change Log
  • CVE-2026-50012
  • CVE-2026-47729
Does this affect the toolchain?

YES/NO

Associated issues
  • N/A
Links to CVEs
Test Methodology

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added Packaging 3.0-dev PRs Destined for AzureLinux 3.0 labels Jul 17, 2026
@Kanishk-Bansal
Kanishk-Bansal marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2026 09:44
@Kanishk-Bansal
Kanishk-Bansal requested a review from a team as a code owner July 17, 2026 09:44
@Kanishk-Bansal
Kanishk-Bansal marked this pull request as draft July 17, 2026 14:56
@Kanishk-Bansal

Copy link
Copy Markdown
  • CVE-2026-50012 (src/peer_digest.cc) — ❌ Does not compile against squid 6.13 — this is what fails the buddy build. The changed lines are byte-identical to upstream 19fcfe92, and the bounds-check placement (before the memcpy in peerDigestSwapInMask) is correct. But the inserted code calls finishAndDeleteFetch(fetch, "peer digest mask data too large", true), a function that does not exist in 6.13 (0 occurrences in 6.13; 13 on master — it was introduced by a later digest-fetch refactor). 6.13 still uses the older API (peerDigestFetchAbort() / peerDigestFetchStop()). The patch applies cleanly only because the surrounding context lines are comments — then it fails at compile time, on both AMD64 and ARM64.

    This is a verbatim copy of the upstream master fix that wasn't backported to the 6.13 digest-fetch API. It needs adaptation, roughly:

    assert(size >= 0);   // or ensure base/Assure.h is included if keeping Assure()
    if (fetch->mask_offset + size > static_cast<ssize_t>(pd->cd->mask_size)) {
        peerDigestFetchAbort(fetch, buf, "peer digest mask data too large");
        return -1;
    }

    (Assure is also risky here — base/Assure.h exists in 6.13 but isn't included in this file; assert is the safe 6.13-native choice. finishAndDeleteFetch is the hard blocker.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants