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
gun...@wagenknecht.org, http://guw.io/
On Dec 11, 2021, at 20:36, Matthias Sohn
<matthias.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 11:35 AM Gunnar Wagenknecht
<gun...@wagenknecht.org> wrote:
Alexander,
On Dec 11, 2021, at 10:16, Alexander Fedorov
<alexander.fedo...@arsysop.ru> 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
-Gunnar
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
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@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
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@eclipse.org
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@eclipse.org
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@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev