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)?
Thanks,
Jonah
~~~
Jonah Graham
Kichwa Coders
www.kichwacoders.com <http://www.kichwacoders.com>
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 12:58, Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
