Hi Ben,

by default, a new ActiveMQ Artemis instance doesn't include a line
for jolokia war (<app url="jolokia"
war="*/opt/jolokia/jolokia-war-1.3.5.war*"/>), I guess it was add manually.
The ActiveMQ Artemis Console war already includes an embedded jolokia agent
that is available as a subpath of the console endpoint, i.e.
https://[host]:8443/console/jolokia
.
The Artemis Jolokia REST API endpoint is written in the log at the startup,
i.e. INFO  [org.apache.activemq.artemis] AMQ241002: Artemis Jolokia REST
API available at http://localhost:8161/console/jolokia

Regards,
Domenico

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 22:53, Ben Warrick <horseatingwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a few servers (Ubuntu VMs) running Artemis 2.14. When I check the
> version of Jolokia through the console it shows Jolokia 1.6.2
>
> However, I can also see that Jolokia is available through the same port as
> the Artemis console -- https://[host]:8443/jolokia -- and that it's
> version
> 1.3.5 (Which is bad because of security vulnerabilities). Also, Artemis
> *seems* to be pointing to this old version of Jolokia from the broker's
> bootstrap.xml file.
>
> <web bind="https://[ip]:8443";
>            path="web"
>            keyStorePath="secret/keystore.ks"
>            keyStorePassword="shhh;-)">
>        <app url="jolokia" war="*/opt/jolokia/jolokia-war-1.3.5.war*"/>
>        <app url="activemq-branding" war="activemq-branding.war"/>
>        <app url="artemis-plugin" war="artemis-plugin.war"/>
>        <app url="console" war="console.war"/>
>    </web>
>
> So what am I not understanding here? Does Artemis have its own Jolokia
> instance?
>
> If I comment out the jolokia line, the console still works. The only
> difference I notice so far is that Jolokia is no longer available through
> port 8443. I do use JMX for some monitoring tools, but I enabled this
> through the management.xm.
>
> So is Artemis even using the 1.3.5 version of Jolokia, or am I just
> bootstrapping this war through Artemis's web server, like some kind of
> silly neophyte? (I think I'm only answering my question here, but feel free
> to confirm or berate me for my ignorance)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>

Reply via email to