(switching to [email protected]; the O.P. unfortunatelysent this to Lucene)
BTW I'm having a good conversation[1] with Ralph Goers on the Log4j2 PMC about the efficacy of log4j2.formatMsgNoLookups. So far I've learned nothing that concerns me and I feel better in fact about other apps using this mitigation. [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgh63sncrsm2bls884pg87mnt8vqztmz I think we should update our security news to reference this conversation for those that want to dig deeper as evidence. The fact that Log4j's security page refers to this technique as "discredited" puts us in a position where we have to acknowledge this word on their part and defend ourselves so it's clear our guidance came out *after* there's, and that we are confident. Yes and link to the Wiki's discredited list; linking to it. I'll get on that. ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the idea of using our Wiki more as you describe. Not so much > *new* news entries because I think search-ability of these CVEs is fine to > an existing entry. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:39 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thinking about it some more, maybe the problem with my suggestion is >> the table on that page is organized by the library version and, if >> unmitigated, the version of the library is still a problem. Maybe another >> way to be clearer about it and avoid rewriting things that people have >> already read would be to add independent entries to the security news page >> for the newer CVE's >> >> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 12:20 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think perhaps in the shock of such a deep and surprising vulnerability >>> with such high visibility, we've begun to break with how we normally handle >>> CVE's that don't apply to our usage of the library. Previously, they just >>> got added to the list of known false positives >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/SolrSecurity#SolrSecurity-SolrandVulnerabilityScanningTools>. >>> Normally we wouldn't even mention them on the security news page, but >>> because of the high visibility we should simply have a line mentioning that >>> these two CVE's are on our false positives page and explain details there. >>> The wiki would provide revision history automatically. >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:25 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We make edits to the log4j advisory almost daily, see >>>> https://github.com/apache/solr-site/commits/e10a6a9fe0eed8dcba3ad1a076c8208e014e76ff/content/solr/security/2021-12-10-cve-2021-44228.md >>>> I wonder if we should include a "Revision history" paragraph in the >>>> advisory for transparency? >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>> 15. des. 2021 kl. 19:09 skrev Uwe Schindler <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Hi all, I prepared a PR about the followup CVE-2021-45046: >>>> https://github.com/apache/solr-site/pull/59 >>>> >>>> Please verify and make suggestion. I will merge this into >>>> main/production later. >>>> >>>> Uwe >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Uwe Schindler >>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> eMail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> *From:* Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:31 PM >>>> *To:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* RE: Log4j < 2.15.0 may still be vulnerable even if >>>> -Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true is set >>>> >>>> We should add this to the webpage. Another one asked on the security >>>> mailing list. >>>> >>>> Uwe >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Uwe Schindler >>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> eMail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> *From:* Gus Heck <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:39 AM >>>> *To:* dev <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: Log4j < 2.15.0 may still be vulnerable even if >>>> -Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true is set >>>> >>>> Perhaps we could tweak it to say that the system property fix is >>>> sufficient *for Solr* (i.e. not imply that it is a valid work around for >>>> all cases) >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:20 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The other attack vectors are also not possible with Solr: >>>> >>>> - Logger.printf("%s", userInput) is not used >>>> - custom message factory is not used >>>> >>>> Uwe >>>> Am 14. Dezember 2021 22:59:26 UTC schrieb Uwe Schindler < >>>> [email protected]>: >>>> >>>> It is still a valid mitigation. >>>> >>>> Mike Drobban I explained it. MDC is the other attack vector and that's >>>> not an issue with Solr. >>>> >>>> Please accept this, just because the documentation of log4j changes, >>>> there's no additional risk. We may update the mitigation to mention that in >>>> Solr's case the system property is fine. >>>> >>>> Uwe >>>> Am 14. Dezember 2021 22:52:29 UTC schrieb solr <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> >>>> But FTR - apache/log4j has discredited just setting the system property as >>>> a mitigation measure, so I still think the SOLR security-page should be >>>> changed to not list this as a valid mitigation: >>>> >>>> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/security.html >>>> "Older (discredited) mitigation measures >>>> >>>> This page previously mentioned other mitigation measures, but we >>>> discovered that these measures only limit exposure while leaving some >>>> attack vectors open. >>>> >>>> Other insufficient mitigation measures are: setting system property >>>> log4j2.formatMsgNoLookups or environment variable >>>> LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS to true for releases >= 2.10, or modifying the >>>> logging configuration to disable message lookups with %m{nolookups}, >>>> %msg{nolookups} or %message{nolookups} for releases >= 2.7 and <= 2.14.1. >>>> “ >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Fredrik >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fredrik Rødland Cell: +47 99 21 98 17 >>>> Maisen Pedersens vei 1 Twitter: @fredrikr >>>> NO-1363 Høvik, NORWAY flickr: http://www.flickr.com/fmmr/ >>>> http://rodland.no about.me http://about.me/fmr >>>> >>>> On 14 Dec 2021, at 23:44, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The MDC Patterns used by solr are for the collection, shard, replica, core >>>> and node names, and a potential trace id. All of those are restricted to >>>> alphanumeric, no special characters like $ or { needed for the injection. >>>> And trying to access a collection that didn’t exist Returns 404 without >>>> logging. >>>> >>>> Upgrading is always going to be more complete, but I think we’re still ok >>>> for now, at least until the next iteration of this attack surfaces. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:37 PM solr <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Only setting -Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true might not be enough to >>>> mitigate the log4j vulnerability. >>>> >>>> See https://github.com/kmindi/log4shell-vulnerable-app >>>> “So even with LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS true version 2.14.1 of log4j is >>>> vulnerable when using ThreadContextMap in PatternLayout.” >>>> >>>> ThreadContext.put(key, value) is used under the hood by MDC. I’m not sure >>>> wether any user-input is actually stored in MDC in SOLR. >>>> >>>> >>>> Probably this should be updated: >>>> https://solr.apache.org/security.html#apache-solr-affected-by-apache-log4j-cve-2021-44228 >>>> >>>> And maybe consider releasing patch releases for other versions than 8.11 >>>> as well which includes log4j 2.16.0? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Fredrik >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fredrik Rødland Cell: +47 99 21 98 17 >>>> Maisen Pedersens vei 1 Twitter: @fredrikr >>>> NO-1363 Høvik, NORWAY flickr: http://www.flickr.com/fmmr/ >>>> http://rodland.no about.me http://about.me/fmr >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Uwe Schindler >>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Uwe Schindler >>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >
