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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
