|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [orbit-dev] log4j vulnerability in Eclipse?|
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...Yes that's theoretically possible. (And in the catalog I can easily do this, but not all installation are installed from the catalog.)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).P2 generally wants to install features so such a thing would need to be packaged up as a feature...What will happen then is that P2 will give the user the choice to install this mitigation unit and uninstallOne 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...a) the dangerous bundle b) any dependent and affected unit (passage in this case) from the current IDE.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...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.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/repositoryEd, how could we then provide an update for released SimRel 2021-12? Regards, AFP.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 orbitwe 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 -Gunnar _______________________________________________ orbit-dev mailing list orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo 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@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Back to the top