Log4j Vulnerability - Please Post All Questions Here



Show first post

344 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

@Laurent @Sisinfra_DGTIC this unfortunately is one of the downsides of the decision that Commvault made to reduce the amount of documented updates by not documenting the downstream hotfixes/updates in the release notes of a new maintenance release. I have not validated it myself but if you examine the hotfix numbers and you cross-reference them against the updates mentioned in the log4j article than you notice the numbers are part of the series that is covered by the maintenance release. 

So for FR24.29 the starting number is 4549 and it stops at 4570 and the specific log4j updates are numbered with Windows (4552/4564) and for Linux (4551/4564).

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

Even though Commvault states it is not affected by the latest finding in version Log4j2 2.16, I still urge Commvault to make sure 2.16 is replaced as soon as possible with Log4j2 2.17. Reason because it removes a lot of noise for many IT departments who will have to clarify towards their internal security teams, customers (think of MSPs) that Commvault is not using the specific Log4j2 function. 

 

 

Userlevel 2
Badge +4

@Mike Struening 

Hi Mike. Our CommServe and clients are running 11.22.27 . Are we affected as I only see updates for 11.22.50 ?

Cheers

Neil

 

@Nick Laflamme II sharing a screenshot someone posted a few posts back:

 

 

All three options are “enabled” by one checkbox that doesn’t refer to the other two functions????

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

@Neil Cooper yes, you will be affected!! the loose updates require 11.22.50 to be in place and yesterday Commvault released 11.22.57 which contains the fixes as part of the maintenance release. so please update your environment as soon as possible!

Userlevel 6
Badge +15

I have just downloaded the latest HP29 from my Commserve, updated the SW cache, and checked its content. I can confirm what @Onno van den Berg already stated : the log4j hotfixes are included in this one.

See below the Windows sw cache references from FR24 after the refresh (dec20/1:56PM my time) : 

:thumbsup: thanks !

Userlevel 1
Badge

Even though Commvault states it is not affected by the latest finding in version Log4j2 2.16, I still urge Commvault to make sure 2.16 is replaced as soon as possible with Log4j2 2.17. Reason because it removes a lot of noise for many IT departments who will have to clarify towards their internal security teams, customers (think of MSPs) that Commvault is not using the specific Log4j2 function.

I'm going to agree with this.

 

We support fed and dod organizations and this will be a battle to keep the solution in place with such a glaring and active vulnerability out there, regardless of cv saying they aren't affected. Coupled with the lack of clear documentation on all of the patches and documentation the impression is that this is not an important item.

 

And it's clear that dev and support don't deal with classified or government systems or consider them important.

As an FYI, the dhs directive gives wide latitude for security teams to offline and isolate affected systems without input from the system owners.

 

Maintaining and pushing cv where we can is an uphill battle on the best of days so it It would behoove cv to take the government seriously on vulnerability response.

Userlevel 2
Badge +4

@Mike Struening 

 

Do I just skip the 11.22.50 and migrate to 11.22.57 then? Do I update CommServe, then Media Agents then all other clients in that order?

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

@Mike Struening

 

Do I just skip the 11.22.50 and migrate to 11.22.57 then? Do I update CommServe, then Media Agents then all other clients in that order?

Just skip 11.22.50 and go directly to 11.22.57, and indeed update in the order as you specified!  

@Mike Struening

 

Do I just skip the 11.22.50 and migrate to 11.22.57 then? Do I update CommServe, then Media Agents then all other clients in that order?

Just skip 11.22.50 and go directly to 11.22.57, and indeed update in the order as you specified!  

<deleted due to correction.> 

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

@Nick Laflamme II please read back my comments in regards to the information that is shared in the maintenance releases. they made some changes in the way they document the fixes that are embedded in a maintenance release. you can verify it yourself by downloading 11.22.57 and see if the mentions fixes are packaged.
 

 

Userlevel 1
Badge +2

Does this latest MR remove the old binaries from Log4j v1 as well? As I am sure you know, CISA is pushing removal of these. They are EOL and have vulnerabilities of their own. 

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

@MathBob, yes I believe the updated MR release does remove the older version of Log4j from the cached locations after installing.

Badge

@Mike Struening Hi, we are on version 11.20 and ran the hotfix as per the recommendation. 

However the scan says still vulnerable, would you be able to comment on this please.

Userlevel 2
Badge +2

@Deepk Mathew , you look to be on version 11.20.77 which is the required version for 11.20 Log4J-2.16 Fix, but that version does not remove the log4j versions that are copied to cache for recovery purposes.  MR 11.20.85 is now available for download that updates and I believe removes the older binaries from cache.

Userlevel 1
Badge +2

@MathBob, yes I believe the updated MR release does remove the older version of Log4j from the cached locations after installing.

I am running 11.24.29 on a server and have observed that the old v1 versions of Log4J are still present in the cached locations. We need clarity on what this MR is supposed to do. 

Userlevel 5
Badge +11

hi @MathBob ,

 

Sticky post at the top has been updated. MR pack rolls up the Log4j 2.16 patches for easy deployment, it does not address Log4j 1.x at this time. Once Log4j 1.x update roadmap is complete, it will be announced.

 

Thank you

Badge

@Deepk Mathew , you look to be on version 11.20.77 which is the required version for 11.20 Log4J-2.16 Fix, but that version does not remove the log4j versions that are copied to cache for recovery purposes.  MR 11.20.85 is now available for download that updates and I believe removes the older binaries from cache.

We have updated from 11.20.77 to 11.20.85 and it does not appear to have removed the affected files from cache and they’re still showing up when scanned.

Userlevel 5
Badge +11

Hi @BHorner 

 

What path are you seeing the scan results come up? Can you post a screenshot or something?

 

Thank you

Badge

Hi @BHorner 

 

What path are you seeing the scan results come up? Can you post a screenshot or something?

 

Thank you

@BHorner Please see belo location which was detected on scan.


E:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\Updates\SP20-HotFix-4560\GxHomeDir\Base\DbJars\DbArchiveEngine.jar contains Log4J-2.x   >= 2.0-beta9 (< 2.10.0) _VULNERABLE_ :-(
E:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\Updates\SP20-HotFix-4563\GxHomeDir\Base\DbJars\DbArchiveEngine.jar contains Log4J-2.x   >= 2.15.0 _VULNERABLE_ :-(
E:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\Base\DbJars\DbArchiveEngine.jar contains Log4J-2.x   >= 2.15.0 _VULNERABLE_ :-(

 

Thank you.

Badge

Hi @BHorner 

 

What path are you seeing the scan results come up? Can you post a screenshot or something?

 

Thank you

From my previous post C:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\Base\DbJars\DbArchiveEngine.jar is still present on all patched servers, I can provide screenshots if needed. The updates folders were removed with the bundle but this file hasn’t been modified or removed.

Userlevel 5
Badge +11

Hi @BHorner 

 

What path are you seeing the scan results come up? Can you post a screenshot or something?

 

Thank you

From my previous post C:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\Base\DbJars\DbArchiveEngine.jar is still present on all patched servers, I can provide screenshots if needed. The updates folders were removed with the bundle but this file hasn’t been modified or removed.

hi @BHorner 

 

Can you raise a support incident to review this further? I checked 11.20.85 and can see the binaries and hotfixes for DBArchiveEngine.jar are indeed present. We will need to check your system to see if updates installed properly at all.

Thank you

Badge

Hi,

 

As per the Tenable website link below it looks like log4j version 1.x is also vulnerable

CVE-2021-4104 | Tenable®️

 

Kindly can you check and update the log4j version 1.x is vulnerable or not.

Userlevel 6
Badge +15

Hi !

Well, yesterday I upgraded all my servers to fr24.hp29, which would include the hotfixes.

Today, while logging to MA, I got the alert about that, and can’t remember the details, but the ‘log4j’ report was mentionned. So I decided to have a post-hp29 upgrade view at this report, expecting to find 100% compliance.

Alas not, see below : 

 

That’s strange in at least 2 points :

  1. before updating to hp29, those 2 clients had been deployed the hp25 + the hotfixes and were reported as OK in that same report.
  2. hp29 DOES include the log4J hotfixes, so why is this reported as not applied ?

I then doubt that this report is compatible with the HP29, as it probably does not list the hotfixes included in this hotfixpack. @Onno van den Berg gave details about that, I guess it’s the same explanation (then that’s another side effect)...

Can a Vaulter confirm this ? Then I guess a new version of that report should be made available to be able to report F24hp29 as compliant/’Corrective Fix installed? =YES’)

Userlevel 7
Badge +19

@Laurent I also had a look and I can confirm you finding and also draw the conclusion that the report itself looks for the specific update versions in the database to be present along with the possibly affected client systems. This specific hotfix information was removed during the installation of the MR. But rest assured the hotfixes are really present but I think it would be smart to update the current report so it also considers the installed MR. 

Reply