Indeed, it is extremely used.
This new threat seems to behave like a worm. What was the last worm-like virus? I recall sql slammer or something like that in early 2000. Was there any other very popular worm between 2003 and now? Thanks Jean From: NANOG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alain Hebert Sent: December 13, 2021 3:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Log4j mitigation Well, In my experience, it is a really widely used library. It has been pretty much the de-facto standard for logging for a long while. IMHO So anything Java (and exposed obviously) need a review... Best Practices As a standard we always tent to push our customers to more light-weight logging library with less magic. PS: And it is not the first time Log4j ended causing headaches... For those wondering. I remember back in 2017 when everyone was angrily saying they'll change for something else... https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=log4j ----- Alain Hebert [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 12/13/21 14:24, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: The bigger problem seems to be the ever growing list of products you may be using which depend on it potentially without your knowledge. Owen On Dec 11, 2021, at 03:41 , Jared Mauch <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: This is largely a patching exercise for people that use the software. If you use it, please patch. Sent via RFC1925 complaint device On Dec 10, 2021, at 10:59 PM, Andy Ringsmuth <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: The intricacies of Java are over my head, but I’ve been reading about this Log4j issue that sounds pretty bad. What do we know about this? What, if anything, can a network operator do to help mitigate this? Or even an end user? ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
