Hi, Everyone, Just to provide an update. https://kafka.apache.org/cve-list is now updated with this CVE.
Thanks, Jun On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:30 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi, Israel, > > Randall added some clarification for the connectors in the PR. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:10 PM Israel Ekpo <israele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do we want to add a disclaimer that users need to check their connectors >> to >> see if it uses log4j2? >> >> Though the core library does not use this dependency, it is possible >> external connectors that use it could introduce vulnerabilities if they >> depend on the affected log4j2 version >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:40 PM Israel Ekpo <israele...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Sure I will take a look at it shortly >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:44 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, Luke, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the analysis. We are trying to put a public statement on >> this >> >> through this PR: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/388. If >> anyone >> >> has more feedback, we can iterate on the PR. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Jun >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 7:53 AM Murilo Tavares <murilo...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > What about Kafka-Connect? >> >> > Anyone has checked if any of the Confluent KafkaConnect docker images >> >> embed >> >> > log4j v2? >> >> > Thanks >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 21:39, Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Hi all, >> >> > > >> >> > > Here's the comments for CVE-2021-44228 vulnerability *from SLF4J >> >> > project*. >> >> > > REF: http://slf4j.org/log4shell.html >> >> > > >> >> > > I think it's a analysis that worth reading. Most importantly, it >> has >> >> > > comments about log4j 1.x versions, which is currently Kafka used. >> >> > > I quote some sentences here for your reference: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1. As *log4j 1.x *does NOT offer a JNDI look up mechanism at the >> >> message >> >> > > level,* it does NOT suffer from CVE-2021-44228.* >> >> > > 2. However, log4j 1.x comes with JMSAppender which will perform a >> JNDI >> >> > > lookup if enabled in log4j's configuration file, i.e. >> >> *log4j.properties* >> >> > or >> >> > > *log4j.xml*. >> >> > > 3. In the absence of a new log4j 1.x release, you can remove >> >> JMSAppender >> >> > > from the *log4j-1.2.17.jar* artifact yourself. (commands are >> listed in >> >> > the >> >> > > page <http://slf4j.org/log4shell.html>) >> >> > > 4. Therefore, in addition to hardening KNOWN vulnerable components >> in >> >> > > aforementioned frameworks, we also recommend that *configuration >> >> files be >> >> > > protected against write access*. In Unix-speak they should be >> >> *read-only >> >> > > for all users, including the owner*. If possible, they should also >> be >> >> > > monitored against changes and unauthorized manipulation. >> >> > > >> >> > > Thank you. >> >> > > Luke >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:55 AM David Ballano Fernandez < >> >> > > dfernan...@demonware.net> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Thanks guys! >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:43 AM Brian Rickabaugh < >> >> br...@rickabaugh.net >> >> > > >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > I strongly recommend that the Kafka community publish a >> >> statement >> >> > on >> >> > > > this >> >> > > > > vulnerability. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > This Log4J exploit is getting a lot of publicity in my >> >> organization >> >> > > and a >> >> > > > > page to point our security team to would be very helpful. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Brian >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Quoting Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com>: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Due to this vulnerability is quite critical and "popular" in >> >> these >> >> > > > days, >> >> > > > > > should *Kafka have an official announcement in our security >> cve >> >> > list >> >> > > > page >> >> > > > > > or somewhere*? (i.e. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__kafka.apache.org_cve-2Dlist&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=lGTK9XqyO0i5KkSD6aOpmRxCVx90zrXNRtOq0vtSPSc&e= >> >> > > > > ) >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > So far, my assessment is that, Kafka is not using log4j 2.x >> >> > versions, >> >> > > > so >> >> > > > > > the risk is lower. >> >> > > > > > Kafka is using log4j 1.x version. As long as users don't set >> the >> >> > jms >> >> > > > > > appender, with the *TopicBindingName* or >> >> > > > > > *TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName >> >> > > > > > *configured with the JNDI can handle (ex: >> >> "ldap://host:port/a";), it >> >> > > is >> >> > > > > > safe. (usually we don't set the topic name or factory name to >> >> this >> >> > > kind >> >> > > > > of >> >> > > > > > for name) >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > One thing to add is that, we are currently working on >> upgrading >> >> > > log4j 1 >> >> > > > > to >> >> > > > > > log4j 2 (KAFKA-9366 < >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_KAFKA-2D9366&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=wNhgW9w7vSqIYgBLQ1iOcfBsQg3vHcPHxChyXqQ2-K0&e= >> >> > > > > >), >> >> > > > > > and we'll make sure it upgrades to 2.15.0 or newer versions. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Thank you. >> >> > > > > > Luke >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 12:00 PM Luke Chen < >> show...@gmail.com> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Hi David Ballano Fernandez and all, >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> Some update here: >> >> > > > > >> Based on @TopStreamsNet's comment here: >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_logging-2Dlog4j2_pull_608-23issuecomment-2D991723301&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=z2x4txhlSwAoPNTeuYxZH8IVCHoGkhLsfbhWDH-SVG4&e= >> >> > > > > >> log4j 1.x versions can still be vulnerable to this issue, >> but >> >> only >> >> > > > when >> >> > > > > >> the jms configuration: *TopicBindingName* or >> >> > > > > >> *TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName* is set to something that >> >> JNDI >> >> > > can >> >> > > > > >> handle - for example "ldap://host:port/a";. In this way, JNDI >> >> will >> >> > do >> >> > > > > >> exactly the same thing it does for 2.x. >> >> > > > > >> That is, *1.x is vulnerable, just attack vector is "safer" >> as >> >> it >> >> > > > depends >> >> > > > > >> on configuration rather than user input.* >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> So, in short, as long as you're using Kafka, and not setting >> >> the >> >> > jms >> >> > > > > >> configuration: *TopicBindingName* or >> >> > > > *TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName >> >> > > > > >> *to >> >> > > > > >> something that JNDI can handle, it is safe! >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> Thank you. >> >> > > > > >> Luke >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 4:23 PM Luke Chen < >> show...@gmail.com> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> Hi David Ballano Fernandez, >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> Thanks for reporting this issue. Yes, this is the most >> >> critical >> >> > > 0-day >> >> > > > > >>> vulnerability for security members. >> >> > > > > >>> I've been investigating this CVE for a while, and I >> confirmed >> >> > that* >> >> > > > > >>> log4j 1.x versions are not affected by this vulnerability.* >> >> > > > > >>> That is, *Kafka, which is using log4j 1.x, is not affected >> by >> >> > this >> >> > > > > >>> vulnerability*. >> >> > > > > >>> So, users can safely use Kafka without worries! :) >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> REF: Here, the PMC of log4j 2 comment on the PR to fix the >> >> > > > > vulnerability >> >> > > > > >>> here >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > < >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_logging-2Dlog4j2_pull_608-23issuecomment-2D990494126&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=6RYStOYjw2vQZteGALeXGun6DVhCKcs539cR9tr3m8A&e= >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >>> and said: >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> *Update (2021-12-11 09:09 JST): according to this analysis >> >> > > > > >>> < >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ceki_status_1469449618316533762&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=ZhLYIdqAKXaVPEbVpd3uce5dtisDqwoWaji_UMVM5Es&e= >> >> > > > > > by @ceki >> >> > > > > >>> < >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ceki&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=103KstS4K4BNNdpX7RDbGisXiPzc62Eq5yiO6DJgn8k&e= >> >> > > > > > (the author of log4j 1.x), Log4j 1.x is not >> >> > > > > >>> impacted, since it does not have lookups, and the JMS >> Appender >> >> > only >> >> > > > > >>> loads >> >> > > > > >>> Strings from the remote server, not serialized objects.* >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> That is, log4j 1 is actually another project from log4j 2, >> and >> >> > the >> >> > > > > >>> author >> >> > > > > >>> of the log4j 1 confirmed log4j 1 is not impacted by this >> >> > > > vulnerability! >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> Thank you >> >> > > > > >>> *.* >> >> > > > > >>> Luke >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 6:42 AM David Ballano Fernandez < >> >> > > > > >>> dfernan...@demonware.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Hi All, >> >> > > > > >>>> >> >> > > > > >>>> I wonder if you guys have heard about this vulnerability >> >> > > > > >>>> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.randori.com_blog_cve-2D2021-2D44228_&d=DwIFaQ&c=qE8EibqjfXM-zBfebVhd4gtjNZbrDcrKYXvb1gt38s4&r=p-f3AJg4e4Uk20g_16kSyBtabT4JOB-1GIb23_CxD58&m=bgQoydMIn6_TMXjRt2Jw8AUS-IPeFX07xSqA4ONmNUDFJXnB5xNHw7TFiy6UD4gP&s=TaOz7ebOBrjIW_i2K4MduRFI7vsBBUZMKr9B1K6JupI&e= >> >> > > > > affecting log4j v1 and >> >> > > > > v2 >> >> > > > > >>>> as far as i can see kafka 2.7 and 2.8 are using log4j v1. >> >> which >> >> > is >> >> > > > > only >> >> > > > > >>>> affected if using jms appender. >> >> > > > > >>>> >> >> > > > > >>>> any thoughts? >> >> > > > > >>>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Thanks! >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> > Israel Ekpo >> > Lead Instructor, IzzyAcademy.com >> > https://izzyacademy.com/ >> > >> >
