That’s unrelated: it’s different and not critical as log4shell.

So, just to be clear:

- upgrading to ActiveMQ 5.17.0 regarding log4shell doesn’t make sense to me, as 
ActiveMQ 5.15/5.16 are not impacted
- as ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is a big change compare to 5.16 (it’s a larger jump than 
from 5.15 to 5.16), I don’t think it’s a good idea to upgrade “just for log4j”
- I won’t take any pressure about timing, as we include lot of changes, and 
still some work to do. Target date is end of January.

So, I stay on my standpoint: just stay with ActiveMQ 5.16.3 (5.16.4 is also in 
preparation), it’s more secure than directly jump to 5.17.0.

Regards
JB

> Le 3 janv. 2022 à 19:09, Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> well log4j1 has its own vulnerabilities too.
> 
> Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> 于2022年1月4日周二 02:09写道:
> he is complaining about this
> 
> 
> JB Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> 于2022年1月4日周二 02:03写道:
> I don’t understand. 
> 
> Again ActiveMQ 5.16 is NOT impacted by log4shell. 
> 
> So why upgrading for that ?
> 
> And no, you won’t have 5.17.0 on 31/01 as I plan to start the vote on that 
> date. 
> 
> I would rather explain to your customer that ActiveMQ still use log4j 1 and 
> so no need to update. 
> 
> We already explained this several time on the mailing list. 
> 
> If you want I can talk to you and your customer to explain and provide 
> details. 
> 
> Regards 
> JB
> 
> > Le 3 janv. 2022 à 18:35, Laurent Blanquet <lblanq...@b2btechno.net> a écrit 
> > :
> > 
> > In deed, they invoke CVE-2021-4104 + CVE-2019-17571 as the reasons why 
> > they want to migrate.
> > 
> > Good news:  we've obtained a deadline to 31/01/2022.
> > 
> > Are you confident guys that we'll have the 5.17 release for this date or do 
> > we have to develop some kind of patch ?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Laurent
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> 
> > Envoyé : lundi 3 janvier 2022 18:00
> > À : dev@activemq.apache.org
> > Objet : Re: ActiveMQ 5.17 and log4j2
> > 
> > Log4j2 is only impacted, not log4j 1.x.
> > 
> > It's what I meant: ActiveMQ 5.16.x/5.15.x are not affected by log4shell 
> > vulnerability.
> > 
> > Regards
> > JB
> > 
> >> On 03/01/2022 17:30, Xeno Amess wrote:
> >> Just show the log4j2 cve list to that customer, and persuade him no hurry 
> >> to migrate.
> >> 
> >> XenoAmess
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: JB Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
> >> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:31:30 PM
> >> To: dev@activemq.apache.org <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.17 and log4j2
> >> 
> >> About 5.16 no way: it’s log4j 1.x
> >> 
> >> And log4j 1.x is not impacted by log4shell vulnerability so no need to 
> >> update.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >> 
> >>>> Le 3 janv. 2022 à 16:00, Laurent Blanquet <lblanq...@b2btechno.net> a 
> >>>> écrit :
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Guys,
> >>> 
> >>> It seems that the latest version available is still using log4j 1.2.17.
> >>> 
> >>> Unfortunately we have a customer who has a strong requisite to migrate to 
> >>> log4j2 before 10 of January !
> >>> 
> >>> Is there a (simple) mean to  force this version (or 5.16.3 ?) to use 
> >>> log4j 2.17 ?
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> 
> >>> Laurent
> >> 
> 

Reply via email to