I was told about LOG4J V2 (2.1.x for example) from other people that ran
the scanner on 2.5 systems. It is a nightmare to vendors and clients
looking for potential security issues. FRom other hand, open source is here
to stay.

In short, mainframe modernization has its price.

ITschak

ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring
for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon  *




On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:25 PM Kirk Wolf <k...@dovetail.com> wrote:

> Phil,
>
> Sorry, I agree that the entirety of what you wrote was more balanced.   I
> reacted (poorly) to this part:
>
> "Same with open source: using random code from an  unknown author would
> have been unthinkable; now it's common."
>
> I don't think that this is common.   Mostly projects use popular open
> source projects.  Most of these have a history, many contributors, test
> suites, etc.    What was shocking about the LOG4J vulnerability was that is
> was one of these.
>
> -- Kirk Wolf
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, at 12:34 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> > Kirk Wolf wrote:
> >
> > >Is that really what you think is going on?
> > >The economics of open source are about *reuse*.   The overwhelming
> majority
> > of software these days is built with it for that reason.   Good
> developers
> > are very careful about what open source that they use.    Good companies
> > have policies and processes for approving any open source used
> internally.
> > What's the alternative, write everything from scratch?   Surely there
> will
> > be no vulnerabilities there :-)   There are complex trade-offs here that
> > haven't been touched as yet on ibm-main.
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess I didn't make myself clear, because what you wrote is precisely
> how
> > I think. Not sure what you took from what I wrote that was different-not
> > being pissy, just noting that we seem to be in violent agreement!
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, in days of yore, you'd write it all from scratch. And I was trying
> to
> > say that that was NOT necessarily more secure: it was a different
> > environment, so things didn't matter as much. There weren't a million
> > monkeys banging on the door with typewriters.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What's shocking about the LOG4J vulnerability is that it has been a
> > quality component used by thousands of projects for so long (20 years?,
> not
> > sure exactly).  People armed with no understanding of the vulnerability
> or
> > even Java immediately began contacting all of their software vendors,
> even
> > products that clearly don't even use java.   This only made the problem
> > worse.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes. I think I've noted before that the ""given enough eyeballs, all bugs
> > are shallow" line, while not intended as a justification for blind use of
> > open source, seems to have been used as such. The log4j debacle should
> (but
> > won't) convince folks that it should not be.
> >
> >
> >
> > And what may be a repeat, but something I wrote elsewhere and perhaps
> here:
> >
> > It's also worth noting that a feature conceptually very, very similar to
> the
> > log4j thing existed almost 40 years ago, in PROFS. DCF included a .sy
> > command that would execute a system command. So, as a friend realized,
> you
> > could send someone a document that did something nasty, like erase all
> their
> > files or log them off (or send the CEO a message saying "You're a ****"),
> > simply by reading it. IBM took this as a SEV1 and fixed it; decades
> later,
> > we've spent the last while dealing with essentially the same dumb
> feechur.
> >
> >
> >
> > So over how many years, how many people saw this feature and didn't say
> > "Hey, you could do Very Bad Things with that"??! Amazing.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
> Kirk Wolf
> Dovetailed Technologies
> http://dovetail.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to