Sure, we are on the same page about this RC.
> On Dec 18, 2021, at 9:46 PM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we are on the same page that we should upgrade to the newest log4j2 > version since the final release has not been published yet. > > But on log4j1, in our community we have discussed this before when there is > a CVE for it. You can view this page > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/ > > And even for the recent CVE, log4j1 is also affected, as listed on the page > you provided. > > Log4j 1.x mitigation > > Log4j 1.x does not have Lookups so the risk is lower. Applications using > Log4j 1.x are only vulnerable to this attack when they use JNDI in their > configuration. A separate CVE (CVE-2021-4104) has been filed for this > vulnerability. To mitigate: Audit your logging configuration to ensure it > has no JMSAppender configured. Log4j 1.x configurations without JMSAppender > are not impacted by this vulnerability. > > It is as you said in the first paragraph, log4j1 has a special CVE for it, > and it will never be fixed. We need to say that ‘yes it is affected but > only if you bla bla’, not good for end users right? > > So I still stand my point that, stay on log4j1 is not a good choice, it is > not because we have already done the work, it is our duty to keep our users > safe from security problem. > > And on the Hadoop part, it is also me that trying to upgrade to log4j2. But > as you know Hadoop is actually constructed by several projects, it is > really not easy to do this work, like what we have done in HBase. > > Anyway, let me prepare a new RC. > > Thanks. > Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>于2021年12月19日 周日09:12写道： > >> As to your first point, I think it is a simple consideration: A user’s >> security department or compliance regulator will ask: “Does this version >> include log4j with a known CVE?” Why would we provide a release where they >> have to answer “yes” when we can provide them a release where they can >> answer “no”? Based on todays knowledge. (And yes I am aware that a user can >> manually upgrade the jar versions in place after unpacking the tarballs. >> Nonetheless.) >> >> I disagree that there was a real need to upgrade log4j because 1.x was EOL >> but I won’t argue that staying with old dependencies is automatically good. >> It’s done, anyway. The main point I would like to make here is should a >> good alternative emerge from this mess I am going to look at replacing >> log4j 2 with it. Or, if log4j decides to accept the inevitable and remove >> the dangerous substitution/rewrite feature then that would be fine too. >> >>>> On Dec 18, 2021, at 4:42 PM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> After 2.15.0, all the problems require you manually put some special >>> markers in the pattern layout in your configuration file, so it is >> already >>> less hurt, we do not have something like %m{lookup} in the pattern layout >>> by default. >>> >>> Anyway, since we haven’t released 3.0.0-alpha-2 yet, let’s upgrade to the >>> newest version. >>> >>> But stay on log4j1 should not be considered as a solution. Log4j1 is >>> already dead long ago and it has several CVEs where no one wants to fix >>> them, and our statement was just ‘do not use the feature’. That’s why we >>> want to migrate to log4j2. Every project may have CVEs, so I think >> whether >>> there are still enough people who are still maintaining the project is >> the >>> most important thing. Log4j2 is already the most active logging >> framework, >>> another option is logback, but there were no releases for nearly 4 years >>> before 2021… >>> >>> Thanks. Let me upgrade the log4j2 to 2.17.0 and send out RC2. >>> >>> Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>于2021年12月19日 周日05:25写道： >>> >>>> Apologies, I managed to hit the send button before finishing. My veto >> can >>>> be cured by upgrading Log4J to ** 2.17.0 ** . See >>>> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/security.html. >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:22 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> The Log4J issues are not fixed by 2.15. >>>>> >>>>> I wish we had remained on Log4J 1. Hadoop 3 is still on 1, although I >>>> know >>>>> they have plans to upgrade. It does not seem advisable to use Log4J 2 >> at >>>>> all actually. Another option that does not include such a dangerous >>>>> reference/rewrite mechanism might be preferable. >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 12:02 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> * Xsums/sigs good >>>>>> * Can build from source >>>>>> * Log4j 2.15 is included (more on this in the below) >>>>>> * log4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true is set (multiple times per process, >> but >>>>>> properly set) >>>>>> * hbase-config.sh issue is fixed over rc1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best as I've been able to keep up, it seems like we should already >>>>>> upgrade to log4j 2.16 due to issues in 2.15. There are alos rumblings >>>>>> that 2.16 may have issues still. It's my opinion that the changes we >>>>>> have here in rc2 are a massive improvement over before. I think this >> is >>>>>> fine; I just wanted to acknowledge that we may still need to update >>>>>> again real soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your release manager work, Duo! >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/14/21 9:06 AM, Duo Zhang wrote: >>>>>>> Please vote on this Apache hbase release candidate, >>>>>>> hbase-3.0.0-alpha-2RC1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The VOTE will remain open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache hbase 3.0.0-alpha-2 >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tag to be voted on is 3.0.0-alpha-2RC1: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/3.0.0-alpha-2RC1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This tag currently points to git reference >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a3ff8e4c812eefab6ad32af45ca449a1395a6510 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The release files, including signatures, digests, as well as >>>> CHANGES.md >>>>>>> and RELEASENOTES.md included in this RC can be found at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/3.0.0-alpha-2RC1/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maven artifacts are available in a staging repository at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1473/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Artifacts were signed with the 9AD2AE49 key which can be found in: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://downloads.apache.org/hbase/KEYS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.0.0-alpha-2 is the second alpha release for our 3.0.0 major release >>>>>> line. >>>>>>> HBase 3.0.0 includes the following big feature/changes: >>>>>>> Synchronous Replication >>>>>>> OpenTelemetry Tracing >>>>>>> Distributed MOB Compaction >>>>>>> Backup and Restore >>>>>>> Move RSGroup balancer to core >>>>>>> Reimplement sync client on async client >>>>>>> CPEPs on shaded proto >>>>>>> Move the logging framework from log4j to log4j2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.0.0-alpha-2 contains a critical security fix for addressing the >>>> log4j2 >>>>>>> CVE-2021-44228. All users who already use 3.0.0-alpha-1 should >> upgrade >>>>>>> to 3.0.0-alpha-2 ASAP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notice that this is not a production ready release. It is used to let >>>>>> our >>>>>>> users try and test the new major release, to get feedback before the >>>>>> final >>>>>>> GA release is out. >>>>>>> So please do NOT use it in production. Just try it and report back >>>>>>> everything you find unusual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And this time we will not include CHANGES.md and RELEASENOTE.md >>>>>>> in our source code, you can find it on the download site. For getting >>>>>> these >>>>>>> two files for old releases, please go to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/hbase/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To learn more about Apache hbase, please see >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://hbase.apache.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Your HBase Release Manager >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >>>>> decrepit hands >>>>> - A23, Crosstalk >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >>>> decrepit hands >>>> - A23, Crosstalk >>>> >>
