Live data from Hacker News

Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

logging.apache.org

21–30 of 335 posts

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

log4j2 has little to do with the log4j you claim turned you off 20 years ago and almost no one works directly to the logging library API rather than an slf4j facade.

Fair enough. But to me it was the smell of a toxic Java ecosystem, where people had to use crappy software even though they knew how bad it was. It took a simple problem and turned it into a clusterfuck of configuration and complexity.

Java ecosystem is rich and much more developed than anything else. There are plenty of better solutions on the market, both open source and commercial. There exist alternatives to log4j for a while, e.g. logback, which is the default option for Spring Boot applications - there was absolutely no need to use log4j2. It was always a free choice.

It is worth mentioning, that any even very basic solution always has a possibility to shoot in the leg, and only professionalism of the developers of the client code can avoid it, so the real reason why this is happening now on a massive scale is that Java world is big and has probable hundreds of thousands, if not millions of developers, who do not have enough knowledge or experience to write better code, understanding all the possible side effects and other consequences of their decisions.

This was going to happen eventually. It will happen again, but maybe next time it will be a Python or TypeScript library. Would it be right to call their ecosystems toxic? I honestly do not know. But let's at least have some respect for people who have built it, almost for free.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#22
post #9

If information security people would spend the same amount of time they are spending complaining about this vulnerability trying to educate their organisations on the importance of supporting open source solutions they depend on we wouldn’t be in this situation. I am sick of reading of very senior people complaining about the impact this vulnerability has had on their week when their companies don’t even contribute a…

I'm baffled by these claims that we should compensate the authors and maintainers of what has been conclusively shown to be software too dangerous to exist. It has the same problem as calls to pay the maintainers of openssl. No amount of money is going to impart good taste and best practices onto these projects. The uncomfortable truth is these libraries need scratch rewrites with better authors.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#23
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude should stop. They're volunteers. It's open source. Users are required to use such piece of software at their own will and risk. Log4j didn't ever get a single penny from most (all?) of their users, and now they should take all the blame. Why? The disclosure process was terrible, they clearly had no time to perform a thorough validation of the hotfixes, and this is the result. Why didn't anybody else ste…

Log4J is bigger than all of V7 Unix. What do you need all that for?

Because the only unsolved problem in logging libraries is: "When do I stop adding features?"

Decent logging is surprisingly complicated, but it's not "We need an arrrchitecturreee! for infinitely configurable logging or we are utterly doomed" complicated.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#24
post #9

If information security people would spend the same amount of time they are spending complaining about this vulnerability trying to educate their organisations on the importance of supporting open source solutions they depend on we wouldn’t be in this situation. I am sick of reading of very senior people complaining about the impact this vulnerability has had on their week when their companies don’t even contribute a…

Maybe we should tell them to engage with open source, not "support it". Companies should look for a way to spend work hours on open source, not finding someone to send money.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#25
post #22
post #9

If information security people would spend the same amount of time they are spending complaining about this vulnerability trying to educate their organisations on the importance of supporting open source solutions they depend on we wouldn’t be in this situation. I am sick of reading of very senior people complaining about the impact this vulnerability has had on their week when their companies don’t even contribute a…

I'm baffled by these claims that we should compensate the authors and maintainers of what has been conclusively shown to be software too dangerous to exist. It has the same problem as calls to pay the maintainers of openssl. No amount of money is going to impart good taste and best practices onto these projects. The uncomfortable truth is these libraries need scratch rewrites with better authors.

OpenSSL at least has significant value, handling logs is usually an easy task.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#26
post #16
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked with security-minded institutions in the past, I've endured and participated in year(s)-long audits of three different open source software projects. The thing that amazes me is that nobody using this software ever did their due diligence. You literally get what you pay for. Kindly step on your own legos and be happy this didn't happen in early April.

> The thing that amazes me is that nobody using this software ever did their due diligence. How could they be expected to? Reviewing all of the source code for log4j is not a walk in the park. Even if you thoroughly reviewed all the source code, would this specific exploit have crossed your mind? The game theory and assumptions around a "logging" library probably led a lot of organizations to not even consider it a p…

I don't expect every user to audit code. But one of the audits I was privvy to was a part of the federal government and had really stringent requirements for the code that they run -- which, of course, includes tracking down all the dependencies, and, yes, is expensive. The fact that this extremely widely-used project never hit such an audit is a curiosity. And a bit of a tragedy of the commons -- many millions of dollars of commerce has depended on this project, and now folks are up in arms because every individual decided that it wasn't their problem to investigate.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. But to me it was the smell of a toxic Java ecosystem, where people had to use crappy software even though they knew how bad it was. It took a simple problem and turned it into a clusterfuck of configuration and complexity.

Java ecosystem is rich and much more developed than anything else. There are plenty of better solutions on the market, both open source and commercial. There exist alternatives to log4j for a while, e.g. logback, which is the default option for Spring Boot applications - there was absolutely no need to use log4j2. It was always a free choice. It is worth mentioning, that any even very basic solution always has a poss…

Why can't we point out that the "default" choice for most java shops is one that is massively overcomplicated, a nightmare to use, and subject to security disasters like we are seeing? This wasn't "unknowable". Using overly complicated, poorly designed software is a direct cause.

Why should I show respect for software I hate using and that causes problems for the entire tech community? I appreciate that they built it for free. I write open source code too, and glady accept criticism if I release something that sucks (which I do often)

This saga is a lesson in choosing the right tech, and switching off libraries built for use cases 100x more complex than what 99.9% users need.

Re: Third High Severity CVE in Log4j Is Published

#30

Thanks to all Log4j developers. As users of your free software since ~20 years, we're sure that, if this vuln disclosure had been better and there were no sign of widespread in-the-wild exploitation, you would have done a better job at patching it, and a single release would have been enough. We won't hold a grudge against you; open source means collaboration, and you don't blame hard-working people that give away th…

Thanks to Log4J developers for turning me off to Java 20yrs ago due to their horrible API design and developer experience. Does not shock me that this security vulnerability happened, but it did shock me that so many people kept using this awful library. I thus enjoyed a development career (mostly) free from this kind of needless pain and suffering.

Please don't cross into personal attack. You can make your substantive points without swipes, and that's the spirit we want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN