Sorry, could you please clarify whether there different aspects pertaining to 1.x and 2.x up to and after 2.8.2?
Thanks, Gintas 2018-02-07 19:10 GMT+01:00 Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>: > Based on that version, this is related to using Java serialization for > logs. The general workaround here is to use a different format like JSON > instead to avoid the vulnerability entirely. > > On 7 February 2018 at 12:03, Gintautas Grigelionis < > g.grigelio...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Exactly, what I meant is that it's worth pointing out that not even all > > versions of log4j 2.x are safe. > > > > Gintas > > > > 2018-02-07 18:18 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>: > > > > > On 2018-02-07, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote: > > > > > > > The CVE says it affects SocketServer up to Log4j 2.8.2, so it's not > > only > > > > Log4j 1.x issue. Did I miss something? > > > > > > The subject is how it has been reported to us. > > > > > > Prior to the latest releases you have not been able to use log4j2 so > > > there is no reason to talk about those versions. The recommended > > > mitigation of "don't use Log4JListener or use the log4j2-bridge" is > > > correct, one might add "of a log4j 2.x version that is not vulnerable > to > > > the attack". > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
