| Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Log4j 1.x vulnerability |
is the orginal signing not enhough?
and what about about.html and other eclipse rule foo.
I went ahead and pushed the naive addition of reload4j 1.2.19 disguised as bundle org.apache.log4j to Orbitfeel free to change this if someone finds out how to use EBR to only sign the upstream artefact.
-Matthias
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 4:04 PM Dirk Fauth via cross-project-issues-dev <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, from my point of view the usage of reload4j is the only backwards compatible solution. Unfortunately not for every case, e.g. too strict version ranges. The solution forward is of course the usage of a log wrapper to decouple development from deployment.
Anyhow I don't know how to add a bundle jar signed and unchanged to Orbit. I am only aware of the re-bundling via EBR. Doing that will cause a change in the jar structure that causes for example logpresso to identify a CVE, although it is fixed. Which is actually only an issue in the detection. But that was one of the reasons why I contacted the reload4j project to change the base to avoid the re-bundling.
Anyone who knows how to only sign and publish to Orbit without re-bundling?
_______________________________________________Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am Di., 8. Feb. 2022, 15:54:
_______________________________________________Dirk,
Thanks. That's really great! It would be great for this release cycle if it were jar signed and available from Orbit so that we could ship it with 2022-03...
There are people who are concerned:
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/1109656/1849775/#msg_1849775
Though I'm not sure if they would consider the problem being fixed in 1.2.19 a fact and even if its a fact if it would be a fact that matters...
Regards,
Ed
On 08.02.2022 15:48, Dirk Fauth via cross-project-issues-dev wrote:
Hi,
I got in contact with the reload4j team. They changed the Bundle-SymbolicName to org.apache.log4j and fixed several OSGi meta data related issues in the meanwhile. Today they published 1.2.19 which should work as a drop-in replacement in Eclipse based applications where Require-Bundle was used. My local tests worked so far.
That said, re-bundling for Orbit should not be necessary as reload4j could directly be consumed via Maven Central.
Just wanted to keep you updated.
Greez,Dirk
Ed Willink <ed.willink@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am Mi., 26. Jan. 2022, 13:47:
Hi
On 26/01/2022 07:48, Christoph Läubrich wrote:
> Why not using SLF4J in all places and let the user choose the
> implementation with their favorite CVEs?
Use of SLF4J has been suggested before and so I tried to be a good
Eclipse citizen. My failed attempts are described in:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559532
If SLF4J is to be used, can someone please ensure that the platform is
fit for purpose and that there is a good tutorial on how to do really
boring logging.
Regards
Ed Willink
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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