remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-995427431
> > @remkop Thank you for your reply I sent a vulnerability report to
[priv...@logging.apache.org](mailto:priv...@logging.apache.org) on December 10
and received a re
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-995427431
> > @remkop Thank you for your reply I sent a vulnerability report to
[priv...@logging.apache.org](mailto:priv...@logging.apache.org) on December 10
and received a re
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990661374
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990758663
> @remkop , thanks for your reply. Just want to make it more clear, because
many people reach this issue mainly for the "JNDI lookup" CVE, so, for log4j
1.x, although
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990661374
> @remkop Which description is correct ?
@linux-ops You are asking me? Well, in my totally objective, completely
unbiased opinion, there is no doubt that my com
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990494126
> Hi @rgoers, is log4j 1.x vulnerable?
Hi @yuezk, as far as I can tell, log4j 1.x does not support lookups. ~~I
also could not find any other reference to JNDI
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990758663
> @remkop , thanks for your reply. Just want to make it more clear, because
many people reach this issue mainly for the "JNDI lookup" CVE, so, for log4j
1.x, although
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990494126
> Hi @rgoers, is log4j 1.x vulnerable?
Hi @yuezk, as far as I can tell, log4j 1.x does not support lookups. ~~I
also could not find any other reference to JNDI
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990661374
> @remkop Which description is correct ?
@linux-ops You are asking me? Well, in my totally objective, completely
unbiased opinion, there is no doubt that my com
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990494126
> Hi @rgoers, is log4j 1.x vulnerable?
Hi @yuezk, as far as I can tell, log4j 1.x does not support lookups. ~~I
also could not find any other reference to JNDI
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990494126
> Hi @rgoers, is log4j 1.x vulnerable?
Hi @yuezk, as far as I can tell, log4j 1.x does not support lookups. I also
could not find any other reference to JNDI in
remkop edited a comment on pull request #608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomment-990474429
Update: the vote for log4j-2.15.0 passed and the release is in progress.
I can see the log4j web site reflecting the [log4j 2.15.0
release](https://logging.apac
12 matches
Mail list logo
