News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Log4Shell Still Has Sting in the Tail. Parent comment

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 ]