$ vagrant --version
Vagrant 2.2.2
macOS 10.14
Linux (all varieties, but in this specific case Ubuntu 16.04).
Using Drupal VM's Vagrantfile, but reproducible with even a simple one after vagrant init.
$ vagrant up
Bringing machine 'test' up with 'virtualbox' provider...
==> mis: Checking if box 'geerlingguy/drupal-vm' is up to date...
==> mis: Clearing any previously set forwarded ports...
==> mis: Vagrant has detected a configuration issue which exposes a
==> mis: vulnerability with the installed version of VirtualBox. The
==> mis: current guest is configured to use an E1000 NIC type for a
==> mis: network adapter which is vulnerable in this version of VirtualBox.
==> mis: Ensure the guest is trusted to use this configuration or update
==> mis: the NIC type using one of the methods below:
==> mis:
==> mis: https://www.vagrantup.com/docs/virtualbox/configuration.html#default-nic-type
==> mis: https://www.vagrantup.com/docs/virtualbox/networking.html#virtualbox-nic-type
==> mis: Clearing any previously set network interfaces...
...
The warning about the E1000 NIC should not be displayed, because I am running VirtualBox 5.2.22, which contains the fix for that vulnerability, at least according to https://github.com/MorteNoir1/virtualbox_e1000_0day/issues/12
The warning about the E1000 NIC vulnerability is displayed.
vagrant init and vagrant up(Note that in the last issue linked above, it was mentioned "warning will go away after upgrading virtualbox", but that seems to not be the case.)
It looks like the warning was added 8 days ago in https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/commit/d589aa9f81003ddeb07ff2e82231caa37173265e
And it looks like this line defines 5.2.22 as a vulnerable version:
https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/commit/d589aa9f81003ddeb07ff2e82231caa37173265e#diff-8b80dd35d96f38ecfec8bc57f4320e49R14
Should that condition be <= 5.2.20 instead?
@geerlingguy Yep, thanks! It was my mistake when I was going through the vbox source code and seeing where the changeset ended up. I have a PR staged to fix the requirement so it will stop warning on 5.2.22.
Thanks again!
@chrisroberts What did you do to fix the warning? Can you tell me detail?
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for _30 days_ โณ. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.
If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.
Most helpful comment
@geerlingguy Yep, thanks! It was my mistake when I was going through the vbox source code and seeing where the changeset ended up. I have a PR staged to fix the requirement so it will stop warning on 5.2.22.
Thanks again!