Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by bob1029 on Friday December 30, 2022 @10:36AM (#34185953)

We dropped an entire feature from our product because of this crap. We had a sidecar java process that handled certain PDF conversion tasks, but the lack of in-house java wizardry meant that we couldn't trust that small binary with regard to a spiraling vulnerability situation. Our customers were very nervous at the time.

Making something work in Java is easy. Proving it is secure is not.

It is almost certain that we over-reacted and shot ourselves in the foot with this, but our customers were happy with the way in which we responded. Better safe than sorry was the theme throughout.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by geodel on Friday December 30, 2022 @11:12AM (#34186356)

> Making something work in Java is easy. Proving it is secure is not.

Ok, so which language it is easy to prove secure?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by eli on Friday December 30, 2022 @11:18AM (#34186426)

Prove secure to a corporate procurement process. Not a formal logic proof.

Any use of Java will trigger additional diligence work to prove it does not use vulnerable log4j. So in this sense almost anything else is better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by ilyt on Friday December 30, 2022 @12:13PM (#34187096)

That's like 15 minutes of work tho

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by richbell on Friday December 30, 2022 @12:34PM (#34187360)

Perhaps — explaining that to people in procurement and convincing them is months of work. Corporate procurement doesn't actually care about the risk in many cases, they care about having someone to blame.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by bob1029 on Friday December 30, 2022 @11:37AM (#34186644)

None are.

But, we do have sufficient resources to justify and defend decisions made with our primary development language.

In this context, "prove" is more like "convince".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by eby on Saturday December 31, 2022 @12:47AM (#34193976)

Is there any interest in bringing back that feature? No wizard here, but I dealt with Log4shell for our product. Reach out if you'd like someone to take a look.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by dj_mc_merlin on Friday December 30, 2022 @11:18AM (#34186427)

> but the lack of in-house java wizardry meant that we couldn't trust that small binary with regard to a spiraling vulnerability situation.

I've never experienced the problem of "nobody in my company knows Java well enough to trace the dependencies of a JAR". Do you all works in Rust and Javascript or something?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by mtillman on Friday December 30, 2022 @11:40AM (#34186675)

"This crap" being software that you exploited for financial gain without contributing to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail by DiggyJohnson on Friday December 30, 2022 @12:34PM (#34187354)

I think your use of the word “exploited” here is completely misused or naive, considering the open source license of the software.

[ Parent | on HN ]