Ed,
thank you for the
detailed analysis. I guess you’re right: determining the
real exposure of each one of the plugins and features when
it comes to such a central component like Log4J is really
challenging.
The good thing though is
that, like you already showed, the risk seems to be
contained into only in 1 package (org.apache.log4j.net) and
only a bunch of plugins seem to include a (non-greedy)
dependency to that package. I like the idea of removing that
package from future version of “org.apache.log4j” but I have
to admin I can’t really assess what that actually means in
terms of effort and consequences.
Anyway, I just wanted to
use the momentum to try and dig a bit deeper and to
preemptively search for similar issues that might arise in
the future :)
Regards,
Federico
Jeane,
The following is not saying your suggestion is a bad idea,
but rather to clarify the nature of what we will need to say
and do...
Eliminating the use of org.apache.log4j quickly seems
unpromising at best.
At least superficially we might as well list all projects as
affected.
Just looking at the first two dependencies:
And then following the dependencies of second of those:
We see that pretty close to the entire universe of Eclipse
plugins is downstream from these.
And then, we don't know for a fact that anyone actually
creates an org.apache.log4j.net.SocketServer...
Looking more closely at the nature of the dependencies
though, it appears that org.apache.commons.logging only
depends on the org.apache.log4j package:
And then it's only an optional, non-greedy dependency:
Nothing (on the release train) depends on the
org.apache.log4j.net package where the offending class is
located:
In the end, determining whether there is an actual risk
rather than a hypothetical risk challenging at best. I expect
that everyone (and I do mean literally everyone using this
bundle) is just doing this and has zero risk:
private static final Logger log =
Logger.getLogger(<SomeClass>class);
Perhaps we could create a new version of org.apache.log4j
that removes the org.apache.log4j.net.SocketServer class (or
the entire package), as a crude quick fix, but even that would
require some IUs to relax/modify their bounds:
This site suggests there is a 1.2.18 version of log4j though
elsewhere it I saw a statement that the problem would not be
fixed.
https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/vulnerability-database/CVE-2019-17571
Accurate information is hard to come by...
Regards,
Ed
On 14.12.2021 09:42, Jeanne, Federico
wrote:
Denis,
good idea with the
page, I think it brings a nice overview of what has been
investigated and how deep the vulnerability reached.
I couldn’t help
noticing though that some of the listed projects mentioned
using Log4j 1.2.15. Wouldn’t it also make sense to have
another page to address the vulnerability CVE-2019-17571
(the one Jonah mentioned)?
Regards,
Federico
I am going to crowd-source this. I need
everyone to chime in on this Wiki page:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse_and_log4j2_vulnerability_(CVE-2021-44228)
I will see that this information gets
broadcast tomorrow, once there is some information in the
table.
Denis
On 2021-12-13 15:03,
Jonah Graham wrote:
Denis,
It is the log4j vulnerability, the fact that it
doesn't affect some versions of log4j is in the
vulnerability description. Please continue doing
this - I appreciate it.
Most media
reports call it simply log4j - but you can reduce
the noise by calling it "Eclipse and log4j2
vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228)"
I am delighted
that we are dependent on a version of log4j that
doesn't have this problem - but I wouldn't get too
excited about promoting that Eclipse IDE hasn't
updated a dependency. log4j 1.2 has been EOL for 6+
years (https://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/). I am glad this vulnerability doesn't
exist, but log4j 1.2 does have its own problems -
like CVE-2019-17571 - so nothing to get too excited
about.
IANAD so perhaps
I'm the worst possible person to be doing this.
On
2021-12-13 14:47, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi
Maybe the CVE is also
misleading or the discussion here is very wrong.
The current Orbit repo contains
org.apache.log4j
1.2.15 is clearly not log4j2. It has been in
use unchanged in every Eclipse distribution
for at least the last ten years.
The
analysis on this thread has been about
org.apache.logging.log4j which could be a
log4j2. It is unused in core and many Eclipse
configurations.
On
13/12/2021 19:33, Denis Roy wrote:
The CVE
shows: Apache Log4j2
I would
assume that is correct.
On
2021-12-13 14:31, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi
Please start by correctly
referencing the vulnerability.
It is with
org.apache.logging.log4j,
There is no issue with
org.apache.log4j so continually referring to
this as a log4j vulnerability is very
misleading.
AFAICT no Eclipse
installation of mine has ever included
org.apache.logging.log4j.
Regards
Ed Willink
On
13/12/2021 19:15, Denis Roy wrote:
How about
I start:
title: Eclipse
and log4j vulnerability
(CVE-2021-442280)
Here is
the status of the various Eclipse
Foundation projects, with regards to
CVE-2021-442280:
- Eclipse
IDE 2021-12:
not vulnerable
- Eclipse
Jetty (version): status
- Eclipse
GlassFish (version): status
- Eclipse
jGit (version): status
We would
likely need to get the input from other
projects, to "self-certify". I can do
this by reaching out to
eclipse.org-committers if anyone agrees.
At this
point, most of Europe is logged out for
the day, and time is ticking away fast for
this sort of action.
Denis
On
2021-12-13 14:00, Jonah Graham wrote:
Hi
Denis,
Yes
- that seems best. I can help with
the actual story - as can others on
this list (I hope :-).
Good question.
If we agree on a
story (ie, if someone can help me
write what the actual story is), I
can certainly post a blog post on
the
blogs.eclipse.org
domain. From there,
we could tweet about it from the
official @EclipseFdn twitter
account, and perhaps add links to
the post from the Newcomers forum.
Does that seem
acceptable?
Denis
On 2021-12-13
13:44, Jonah Graham wrote:
Thanks everyone
for working on this - I
think we have a pretty good
story now about what the
Eclipse IDE / SimRel has
done for the log4j
vulnerability.
The last thing
is to say so in a concise
way - where can/should we
say so (besides this mailing
list)?
Christoph,
I really appreciate your
creative ideas. I think
"we, i.e., as an I"
should indeed plan long term
for the possibility of
expedient mitigation
of such problems in the
future using this type of
approach.
For the project catalogs
I've regenerated them such
than installing any
version of the RCP package
(with any installer) will
install the latest
version of Passage which
strictly requires the
updated/fix version of
org.apache.logging.log4j.
Also any installer-created
RCP package
installation will ask to
update itself upon
startup/restart.
https://git.eclipse.org/c/oomph/org.eclipse.oomph.git/commit/?id=929d140afc34ecdb85b7996c63ce0b36b6723a34
Another thought I had is
that the donation support
I've added opens a
browser page. In this case
we could change the URL such
that a page
with information about this
CVE could be presented...
But now it's late in the day
and I'm done for now.
Regards,
Ed
On 13.12.2021 18:03,
Christoph Läubrich wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> > One problem is we
don't know all the things
that strictly require the
> > older bundle.
>
> In the end what matters
is that the bundle is no
longer available. If
> we don't uninstall them
at laes they won't resolve
anymore and people
> will go to the project
website, report an issue
and/or install an
> update :-)
>
> > In the end it at
the simplest, it could just
be a feature with p2.inf
> > with negative
requirements for bundles
that have been determined to
be
> > unsafe.
>
> yep that's what I have
had in mind, I think it
would be cool to have
> one global feature "CVE
Mitigation" or something and
this
> requires/includes
individual CVE features that
ship with appropriate
> p2.inf items.
> Thus way, once added to
an IDE this will enable us
to make CVE fixes
> available tor a broad
audience and make people
more aware of them
> through the update
capabilities of eclipse
itself.
>
> >> What do you
think does this sounds
reasonable?
> > It's a creative
idea. I like it.
>
> Good to hear! As you
probably know much more
about p2.inf magic than
> me can you craft such a
feature so we can
investigate this more? As
> mentioned before this
is more an idea so I can't
shar any concrete
> code samples yet and
have no idea where this
would bes be placed (part
> of the platform cbi?
github/gitlab project under
eclipse umbrella?
> eclipse cbi maybe?)
>
>
> Am 13.12.21 um 17:48
schrieb Ed Merks:
>> Christoph,
>>
>> Comments below.
>>
>> On 13.12.2021
17:29, Christoph Läubrich
wrote:
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>> I wonder if it
would not be possible to
publish a general purpose
>>> "CVE
mitigation" Updatesite
everyone could add to an
existing
>>> eclipse
install.
>> Of course not
everyone has Passage
installed, nor this specific
>> bundle...
>>>
>>> Such an
Updatesite could contain a
Unit for a given CVE (e.g.
>>> CVE-2021-44228
in this case) that defines a
negative requirement on
>>> any affected
version (in this case any
org.apache.logging.log4j
with
>>> version range
< 2.15).
>> Yes that's
theoretically possible.
(And in the catalog I can
easily
>> do this, but not
all installation are
installed from the catalog.)
>>>
>>> What will
happen then is that P2 will
give the user the choice to
>>> install this
mitigation unit and
uninstall
>> P2 generally wants
to install features so such
a thing would need to
>> be packaged up as a
feature...
>>>
>>> a) the
dangerous bundle
>>> b) any
dependent and affected unit
(passage in this case)
>>>
>>> from the
current IDE.
>> One problem is we
don't know all the things
that strictly require the
>> older bundle. The
parts of Passage contributed
to the train only
>> have lower bounds,
but there are Passage
features that include this
>> bundle with an
exact range...
>>>
>>> Once an Update
is in place, passage could
be installed (e.g. with a
>>> separate
update-site) again including
a fixed version of the
>>> problematic
dependecy.
>>>
>> Another question is
what else out there that
might already be
>> installed depend on
logging.log4j and would also
need to be updated
>> or uninstalled?
That's an open ended
question...
>>> Even though
such a site would currently
need some kind of
>>> handcrafted
metadata, we could enhance
this so we probably once
have
>>> some automatic
import of CVE from public
databases and automatic
>>> notification of
users about new CVE
affecting their IDE.
>>>
>> Yes, such a thing
will follow some pattern so
generating such a thing
>> would be good...
>>> Including such
a site in a target platform
of a build could
>>> effectively
fail the build (and make
projects automatically aware
of
>>> new problems)
as they arise, also
preventing one from
including
>>> problematic
dependencies in the future.
>> In the end it at
the simplest, it could just
be a feature with p2.inf
>> with negative
requirements for bundles
that have been determined to
>> be unsafe.
>>> What do you
think does this sounds
reasonable?
>> It's a creative
idea. I like it.
>>> Am 12.12.21 um
14:07 schrieb Ed Merks:
>>>> Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> Will you
set the lower bound to force
the fixed version and to
>>>> disallow
the older version?
>>>>
>>>> If only the
installer and its product
catalogs were involved, I
>>>> could fix
the problem easily by adding
an update site and forcing
>>>> the version
range to install the fixed
version. I wouldn't even
>>>> need a new
version of Passage to
force/fix that...
>>>>
>>>> But we're
also talking about the
release train repository,
which
>>>> would need
a respin. Unfortunately
there are updates in the
SimRel
>>>> repo after
the 2021-12 tag:
>>>>
>>>> Some of
those will be needed because
the
>>>> https://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/updates/4.22-I-builds
>>>> repository
is gone. Hopefully other
projects contributed stable
>>>>
repositories with unchanging
released content rather than
pointing
>>>> at "moving
target" that has changed its
content since the release.
>>>>
>>>> If we
decide we need to do a
respin and we accomplish
that, then
>>>> EPP needs
to respin as well. This
will be something the
Planning
>>>> Council
will need to discuss and to
decide which actions to
take.
>>>>
>>>> Only you
know how Passage uses the
logging facility to know if
>>>> there is in
actual fact a risk. I.e.,
is Passage actually logging
>>>> information
obtained from an internet
connection and is that
>>>> actually
enabled/activated in the
RCP/RAP package itself?
I.e.,
>>>> does what
Jens Lideström outlined
apply? (Thanks Jens!) If
not,
>>>> then
perhaps we're unduly
alarmed. I could see
nothing that
>>>> appears to
be related to Passage in an
IDE into which I installed
>>>> Passage,
i.e., no preferences, no
wizards, no views, nothing
>>>> obvious.
Is it perhaps the case that
the security problems would
>>>> only
manifest themselves in
applications where Passage
is deployed
>>>> at runtime
for licensing control of
that application?
>>>>
>>>> Please try
to outline the risk factors
of Passage's development
>>>> tools being
installed in a IDE
application to help inform
the
>>>> Planning
Council in making a
decision.
>>>>
>>>> P.S.,
Passage in the only
component on the 2021-12
train that is
>>>> affected; I
cannot comment on all
Eclipse-distributed content
in
>>>> general...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> On
12.12.2021 11:04, Alexander
Fedorov wrote:
>>>>> Passage
Team is working to provide
Eclipse Passage 2.2.1 that
will
>>>>> consume
fixed logger from
>>>>> https://download.eclipse.org/tools/orbit/downloads/drops2/I20211211225428/repository
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed, how
could we then provide an
update for released SimRel
2021-12?
>>>>>
>>>>>
Regards,
>>>>> AF
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S.
I'm really surprised to have
the only component affected
>>>>> after
having
org.apache.*logging**.log4j
2.8.2 *published in
>>>>> Eclipse
Orbit starting from 2020-09
(6 releases).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
12/12/2021 12:41 PM, Ed
Merks пишет:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Just to avoid any confusion
such as that which Ed
Willink
>>>>>>
mentioned, the
>>>>>> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-44228
>>>>>>
issue is specifically about
the class
>>>>>>
org.apache.logging.log4j.core/lookup.JndiLookup.which
is not in a
>>>>>>
package provided by
org.apache.*log4j *but
rather in a package
>>>>>>
provided by
org.apache.*logging**.log4j
*as illustrated here in a
>>>>>> CBI
p2 aggregator repo view:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Based on the analysis tool
I've been developing for
better
>>>>>>
managing SimRel, e.g., to
provide traceability and
dependency
>>>>>>
analysis, it's definitely
the case that only Passage
depends on
>>>>>>
this bundle:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Specifically via bundle
requirements (as opposed to
package
>>>>>>
requirements):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Those requirements have no
upper bound, only an
inclusive lower
>>>>>>
bound, such that they will
resolve and use any higher
version of
>>>>>>
org.apache.logging.log4j.
As such, installing Passage
with
>>>>>> https://download.eclipse.org/tools/orbit/downloads/drops2/I20211211225428/repository
>>>>>> in
the available sites and
enabling to use those, does
install
>>>>>> the
newer version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The
bad news is that the RCP/RAP
package contains Passage and
>>>>>>
hence the bad version of the
org.apache.logging.log4j
bundle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
What's not clear is whether
Passage actually logs
messages whose
>>>>>>
content can be externally
subverted/exploited via
contact to the
>>>>>> web
and whether such actions are
activity is actually enabled
by
>>>>>>
default, e.g., in the
RCP/RAP package...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Regards,
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On
11.12.2021 20:48, Gunnar
Wagenknecht wrote:
>>>>>>>
Thanks Matthias!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
According to Wayne, 2.15 has
already been vetted and is
good for
>>>>>>>
use:
>>>>>>>
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse.org-committers/msg01333.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
-Gunnar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
--
>>>>>>>
Gunnar Wagenknecht
>>>>>>>
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
http://guw.io/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2021, at 20:36, Matthias
Sohn
>>>>>>>> <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 11:35 AM Gunnar
Wagenknecht
>>>>>>>> <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alexander,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2021, at 10:16,
Alexander Fedorov
>>>>>>>>> <alexander.fedorov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It would be great to learn
vulnerability clean-up
process
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Orbit team to then
apply it to Eclipse Passage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no Orbit team. Orbit is
driven by project committers
>>>>>>>> using/needing libraries in Orbit.
>>>>>>>> I encourage the Eclipse Passage
project to submit a Gerrit
>>>>>>>> review for a newer version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> considering the buzz around this
vulnerability I went ahead
and
>>>>>>>> pushed an update to log4j 2.15 for
orbit
>>>>>>>> https://git.eclipse.org/r/c/orbit/orbit-recipes/+/188768
>>>>>>>> note that the required
clearlydefined score isn't
reached yet,
>>>>>>>> if this doesn't change soon
>>>>>>>> maybe someone can contribute the
missing information to
>>>>>>>> clearlydefined or
>>>>>>>> we file CQs to get the license approval
for the new version
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can also try a new way as
described by Mickael here:
>>>>>>>> https://www.eclipse.org/lists/orbit-dev/msg05509.html
>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Denis Roy
Director, IT Services |
Eclipse Foundation
Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Innovation and
Collaboration
Twitter:
@droy_eclipse
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
