Team

As you saw the vote for 1.15.2 has passed.  Thanks all.  However, I am
holding off sending the announce thread and such because I can't get
the website updated for some reason.  It appears to be not unique to
us as reported in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/INFRA/issues/INFRA-22647?filter=allopenissues.
I've also reported in ASF INFRA slack so we'll see.  Once sorted will
wrap the final announce thread up.

Thanks

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:19 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...sooooo 1.15.1 was fun.  But there is another log4j 2.x
> vulnerability reported.  While we remain minimally exposed we should
> just get this over with totally.  There are changes on main now which
> eliminate the usage of log4j 2.x core entirely and block usage of it
> going forward.  Components can still use log4j as they always could
> but they must bridge to slf4j using the proper dependencies as they
> always should have anyway.  We have the latest logback.  All logs
> should route to slf4j which we then actually write out using logback.
>
> So I'm going to go ahead and kick off a 1.15.2 to let us get this
> resolved formally and help alleviate concerns folks tend to have now
> around logging related vulnerabilities.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:08 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here are the JIRAs I grabbed from the 1.16/main line to pull into
> > 1.15.1 in addition.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-9480?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.15.1
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:08 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Goodness.  Two RC build release processes have failed a couple hours
> > > into it due to apparent network/availability issues while sending
> > > artifacts to repository.apache.org.  I can only assume they're getting
> > > hit with a lot of projects trying to do a lot of uploads and such.
> > > Will try again in a bit/first thing in AM.  Once we can get a
> > > successful build up I might suggest we do what log4j has done and
> > > simply open the vote long enough to get enough binding +1 votes and
> > > get this out there.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:04 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks - will roll with that
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:03 AM David Handermann
> > > > <exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > PR 5598 for NIFI-9474 is now merged into the main branch, which 
> > > > > streamlines
> > > > > version updates to Log4j 2 dependencies.  It also excludes log4j-core 
> > > > > older
> > > > > than 2.15.0 from build artifacts, so this should provide a good basis 
> > > > > for a
> > > > > patch release.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5598
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > David Handermann
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:44 AM Chris Sampson
> > > > > <chris.samp...@naimuri.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd agree. The discussions in Slack and separate user mailing list 
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > are a reassurance for users (who read them), but a patch for the 
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > 1.15 branch would seem sensible for people to pick up and assuage 
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > remaining security concerns they may have around the library.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That leaves 1.16 a little longer to get more good stuff merged in 
> > > > > > for the
> > > > > > next feature release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris Sampson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, 14:19 David Handermann, 
> > > > > > <exceptionfact...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joe,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion. Moving forward with a 1.15.1 
> > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > release sounds like the best path forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > David Handermann
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:49 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Team
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We still dont think we are vulnerable but this now highly risky 
> > > > > > > > library
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > present.  We have PRs to eliminate it/main is fixed.   I think 
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > a 24 hour 1.15.1 release/vote for it.   It will eliminate 
> > > > > > > > concerns for
> > > > > > > > users.   We are frankly pretty close to a 1.16 release at this 
> > > > > > > > point as
> > > > > > > > well it seems but can circle back.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any different views on 1.15.1?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >

Reply via email to