Log4j Vulnerability - Please Post All Questions Here



Show first post

344 replies

Userlevel 6
Badge +18

CVE-2021-44832: The Commvault software does not use the JdbcAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about remote code execution attack does not affect any Commvault products.


Not sure how much I trust that, because our tenable scanner saw it was vulnerable on 1.2, above and they said it wasn’t and now they are working on fixing that issue.


I assume Tenable is simply scanning for the existence of the Log4J packages and not digging into the binaries of applications to determine if they’re using the exploited functions.

Thanks,
Scott
 

Userlevel 5
Badge +11

Top post has now been updated regarding the latest vulnerabilities. 

Badge +1

This CVE pertains to the vulnerability causing the release of 2.17.1

https://documentation.commvault.com/v11/essential/146231_security_vulnerability_and_reporting.html

CVE-2021-44832: The Commvault software does not use the JdbcAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about remote code execution attack does not affect any Commvault products.

Thanks,
Scott
 

Not sure how much I trust that, because our tenable scanner saw it was vulnerable on 1.2, above and they said it wasn’t and now they are working on fixing that issue.

Userlevel 6
Badge +18

This CVE pertains to the vulnerability causing the release of 2.17.1

https://documentation.commvault.com/v11/essential/146231_security_vulnerability_and_reporting.html

CVE-2021-44832: The Commvault software does not use the JdbcAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about remote code execution attack does not affect any Commvault products.

Thanks,
Scott
 

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

and any impat based on CVE-2021-44832?

@Bart - According to the national vulnerability database, this is resolved in 2.17.1.

When is CV going to use 2.17.1?

@nizmoz - Our development teams are aware and will be using 2.17.1, but I do not have an ETA at this time.

Badge +1

and any impat based on CVE-2021-44832?

@Bart - According to the national vulnerability database, this is resolved in 2.17.1.

When is CV going to use 2.17.1?

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

and any impat based on CVE-2021-44832?

@Bart - According to the national vulnerability database, this is resolved in 2.17.1.

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

and any impat based on CVE-2021-44832?

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

New vulnerability has been released today.  2.17 is now vulnerable.  

https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/security.html

@nizmoz - Thank you for the detail.  I’ve been advised we are aware and looking into this and will be going to 2.17.1.  I’ve requested more detail from our teams and will update this thread when we are able.

Badge +1

New vulnerability has been released today.  2.17 is now vulnerable.  

https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/security.html

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

@Scott Hall - If you are still seeing physical 2.3 binaries in the install path after upgrading, I would open a support case with Commvault to find out why the binaries are still present, ensure all the binaries were updated correctly and your customer is not at risk.

Badge

I have applied the log4j-2.16 hotfixes to my Customer’s site on top of 11.24.25. The Log4j affected servers report shows that there is one client affected and also shows that the corrective fix is installed. However the Customer is reporting that their scans still show that vulnerable software is installed on the server --> /opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

  1. Are the hotfixes supposed to uninstall the older, vulnerable software?
  2. If not, can the Customer manually remove the file above themselves to clear the positive scan they are getting?

Thanks!

 

@Scott Hall , the old versions will be in the uninstall folder, though an upcoming Maintenance Release will clear everything out.

It’s recommended to leave it (it’s not active) and let the upcoming MR remove it.

@Mike Struening - Do you know which Maintenance Release is supposed to contain the hotfix to remove the old binaries from servers? My understanding was that it was 11.24.29, however we applied that yesterday but are still seeing older binaries in this location on the server: 

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-api-2.3.jar

This is a linux server (non-HyperScale).

Thanks!

@Scott Hall, The December 19th release is the latest, and in your case, 11.24.29.  This MR should be removing the older binaries from the recovery path.  Are you using the Commvault report to scan the environment?

@Scott A - When using the Commvault report, we see only the server in question and that it is “Fixed”. The Customer is performing their own scan and are seeing the same server with the older files mentioned above still present on the client. Due to this, they still consider the client “vulnerable”. I can also see these binaries in the location mentioned above via a client browse.

Where is the “recovery path” that we are removing the binaries from? If it is not the same path (/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars), that would explain why they are not getting removed. If we can advise the Customer that it is fine to delete the files manually, that would also work for them but my understanding is that this would happen automatically with the MR install and that is not what we are seeing. 

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

I have applied the log4j-2.16 hotfixes to my Customer’s site on top of 11.24.25. The Log4j affected servers report shows that there is one client affected and also shows that the corrective fix is installed. However the Customer is reporting that their scans still show that vulnerable software is installed on the server --> /opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

  1. Are the hotfixes supposed to uninstall the older, vulnerable software?
  2. If not, can the Customer manually remove the file above themselves to clear the positive scan they are getting?

Thanks!

 

@Scott Hall , the old versions will be in the uninstall folder, though an upcoming Maintenance Release will clear everything out.

It’s recommended to leave it (it’s not active) and let the upcoming MR remove it.

@Mike Struening - Do you know which Maintenance Release is supposed to contain the hotfix to remove the old binaries from servers? My understanding was that it was 11.24.29, however we applied that yesterday but are still seeing older binaries in this location on the server: 

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-api-2.3.jar

This is a linux server (non-HyperScale).

Thanks!

@Scott Hall, The December 19th release is the latest, and in your case, 11.24.29.  This MR should be removing the older binaries from the recovery path.  Are you using the Commvault report to scan the environment?

Badge

I have applied the log4j-2.16 hotfixes to my Customer’s site on top of 11.24.25. The Log4j affected servers report shows that there is one client affected and also shows that the corrective fix is installed. However the Customer is reporting that their scans still show that vulnerable software is installed on the server --> /opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

  1. Are the hotfixes supposed to uninstall the older, vulnerable software?
  2. If not, can the Customer manually remove the file above themselves to clear the positive scan they are getting?

Thanks!

 

@Scott Hall , the old versions will be in the uninstall folder, though an upcoming Maintenance Release will clear everything out.

It’s recommended to leave it (it’s not active) and let the upcoming MR remove it.

@Mike Struening - Do you know which Maintenance Release is supposed to contain the hotfix to remove the old binaries from servers? My understanding was that it was 11.24.29, however we applied that yesterday but are still seeing older binaries in this location on the server: 

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-core-2.3.jar

/opt/commvault/Base32/DbJars/log4j-api-2.3.jar

This is a linux server (non-HyperScale).

Thanks!

Userlevel 1
Badge

The commvault report and sql query are not validated security tools. They just report that the update(s) installed on the client.

 

We get daily nessus reports of the CV infrastructure having a level 10 severity and have to explain to our customers that according to CV it is resolved.

 

CV will not get very far in saying that the platform is not affected unless the security vendors scan and show no vulnerabilities can be located.

Badge +1

Our latest Tenable scan is showing the Content Index server file is vulnerable.  

 

c:\program files\commvault\simpana\ciserver\webapps\push.war 

Installed Version 1.2.15

 

I asked Support and they are saying its not, but per the scan it is showing up.  I need a resolution to prevent this from showing on scans if its not an issue.

@nizmoz, are you using the Commvault reporting tool to validate status of the Commvault agents?

 

I have used it and it doesn’t show any.  But our Tenable Nessus scan doesn’t lie and saw the vulnerability.  CV support finally responded with this.

 

There is currently a project underway by CV Engineering to move all uses of log4j in the CV Software to 2.17.  I will let you know once we have a firm date on the release of this improvement.

 

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

Our latest Tenable scan is showing the Content Index server file is vulnerable.  

 

c:\program files\commvault\simpana\ciserver\webapps\push.war 

Installed Version 1.2.15

 

I asked Support and they are saying its not, but per the scan it is showing up.  I need a resolution to prevent this from showing on scans if its not an issue.

@nizmoz, are you using the Commvault reporting tool to validate status of the Commvault agents?

Badge +1

Our latest Tenable scan is showing the Content Index server file is vulnerable.  

 

c:\program files\commvault\simpana\ciserver\webapps\push.war 

Installed Version 1.2.15

 

I asked Support and they are saying its not, but per the scan it is showing up.  I need a resolution to prevent this from showing on scans if its not an issue.

Badge

When running the affected servers report I receive “No Data Available” for features and hotfix installed boxes and “No records available” for the bottom table.  Is that the same as your note Note: If the resulting report shows No Data to Display, then there are no affected clients in this CommCell?  Since the verbiage doesn’t match completely, wanted to confirm without a doubt.

 

Disregard, I went back further in the comments and found this:

 

Badge +1

Hello,

I have imported the latest version of “ Log4J affected servers “ report, when I run it does not show “ No Data to Display “ but the following, which is slightly different: 

 

 
Therefore, I am unsure if the report take into account all of our clients… I mean, I expect to see all clients listed in this report with their version and patch level instead of nothing…

Thank you in advance for your confirmation.
Regards.

R. 

Did you get an answer on your question?  I’m seeing the same screens when I run the report in my environment and I’ve applied the Hotfix to a few servers that I’d expect to show up in the list.

Did the servers have table level restore, archive, or data masking enabled?  Its only going to show the high risk applications with those features enabled.  If you have SQL, Oracle, or Cloud app servers, without those advanced features - log4j 2.x is not in use, so they are lower risk - although we generally recommend upgrading anyway.

No it doesn’t look like they had those features enabled.  Thanks for the information.

Userlevel 5
Badge +8

Hello,

I have imported the latest version of “ Log4J affected servers “ report, when I run it does not show “ No Data to Display “ but the following, which is slightly different: 

 

 
Therefore, I am unsure if the report take into account all of our clients… I mean, I expect to see all clients listed in this report with their version and patch level instead of nothing…

Thank you in advance for your confirmation.
Regards.

R. 

Did you get an answer on your question?  I’m seeing the same screens when I run the report in my environment and I’ve applied the Hotfix to a few servers that I’d expect to show up in the list.

Did the servers have table level restore, archive, or data masking enabled?  Its only going to show the high risk applications with those features enabled.  If you have SQL, Oracle, or Cloud app servers, without those advanced features - log4j 2.x is not in use, so they are lower risk - although we generally recommend upgrading anyway.

Badge +1

Hello,

I have imported the latest version of “ Log4J affected servers “ report, when I run it does not show “ No Data to Display “ but the following, which is slightly different: 

 

 
Therefore, I am unsure if the report take into account all of our clients… I mean, I expect to see all clients listed in this report with their version and patch level instead of nothing…

Thank you in advance for your confirmation.
Regards.

R. 

Did you get an answer on your question?  I’m seeing the same screens when I run the report in my environment and I’ve applied the Hotfix to a few servers that I’d expect to show up in the list.

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

We just got this path reported on our Linux Media Agents

/opt/commvault/Base64/Huawei/FusionStorage/log4j-1.2.16.jar

I know that it’s probably not a problem (as we have nothing Huawei), but Tenable found it, so it’s on our reports and we’re going to want it addressed.

@Erik Soosalu Have you run the Commvault report against the client?  2.16 covers the vulnerabilities within our software.

 

We’re fully patched at 11.23.42 and the report shows nothing.

I know this is a log4j 1.x issue so not the highest priority.   This was just a new one that Tenable is starting to show in our environment and until it is either updated or removed we’re going to keep getting flak for it.

 

 

 

@Erik Soosalu.  Thanks Erik, that is good to hear.  I know 1.x is not affected by this vulnerability and is listed as end of life after 2015.  Our updates are targeting the CVSS 10 vulnerability affected in the 2.x versions, although we are investigating upgrade paths for 1.x that will be addressed separately.  If possible, users should upgrade to Log4J 2.x as you have already done.

Badge +2

We just got this path reported on our Linux Media Agents

/opt/commvault/Base64/Huawei/FusionStorage/log4j-1.2.16.jar

I know that it’s probably not a problem (as we have nothing Huawei), but Tenable found it, so it’s on our reports and we’re going to want it addressed.

@Erik Soosalu Have you run the Commvault report against the client?  2.16 covers the vulnerabilities within our software.

 

We’re fully patched at 11.23.42 and the report shows nothing.

I know this is a log4j 1.x issue so not the highest priority.   This was just a new one that Tenable is starting to show in our environment and until it is either updated or removed we’re going to keep getting flak for it.

 

 

 

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

@Scott A OK for /opt/commvault or custom path.

I personally have a different path for Commvault products, but what about the required 3rd party tools ?

I think it’s the question here.

 

@Laurent Which 3rd party tools are you referring to?

Reply