Log4j Vulnerability - Please Post All Questions Here


Userlevel 7
Badge +23

Summary
 

The following thread describes the potential exposure to the Apache Log4j vulnerability and steps to update Commvault software.

It has been confirmed that a small subset of Commvault agents are impacted. 

 

Update as of 1st February: Maintenance Release to bring Log4j version to 2.17.1 across Commvault software platform has been released. This release includes the upgrade of components that previously used Log4j 1.x. 

 

Update as of 20th December: Maintenance Release including relevant hotfixes now available for Commvault software, see section “Maintenance Releases”. Please note customers who have already applied hotfixes for Log4j 2.16, do not need to install.

For customers with Commvault Hyperscale X and Distributed storage, please see section new Community article here: 

 

Apache Log4j information

  • CVE-2021-44228: Apache Log4j2 JNDI features do not protect against attacker controlled LDAP and other JNDI related endpoints. From log4j 2.15.0, this behavior has been disabled by default
  • CVE-2021-45046: Apache Log4j 2.15.0 was incomplete in certain non-default configurations. Log4j 2.16.0 fixes this issue by removing support for message lookup patterns and disabling JNDI functionality by default
  • CVE-2021-45105: Apache Log4j2 did not protect from uncontrolled recursion from self-referential lookups. This allows an attacker with control over Thread Context Map data to cause a denial of service when a crafted string is interpreted. 
  • CVE-2021-4104: JMSAppender in Log4j 1.2 is vulnerable to deserialization of untrusted data.

  • CVE-2021-44832: Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-beta7 through 2.17.0 (excluding security fix releases 2.3.2 and 2.12.4) are vulnerable to a remote code execution (RCE) attack where an attacker with permission to modify the logging configuration file can construct a malicious configuration using a JDBC Appender with a data source referencing a JNDI URI which can execute remote code.

Note: Log4j version 1.x is NOT affected.

There’s a great blog article that covers the potential impact.

 

Updates:

CVE-2021-45105: Commvault can confirm that the affected Log4j2 function is NOT leveraged by Commvault software and thus there is no immediate need to update Commvault to use Log4j 2.17. 

CVE-2021-4104: The Commvault software does not use the JMSAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about log4j 1.x versions does not affect any Commvault products.

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.

 

Identifying and Updating Commvault

 

Exposure:

Note: check FAQ at the bottom of this post for specific version questions.

The exposure impacts the below Commvault product features:

Cloud Apps package
Oracle agent - Database archiving, data masking, and logical dump backup
Microsoft SQL Server agent - Database archiving, data masking, and table level restore

Commvault Distributed Storage

Commvault Hyperscale X

 

Identifying affected servers using the Commvault Log4j report

 

Please use the below direct link to download the Commvault Log4J Affected Servers report then follow step 4 to import and run

https://cloud.commvault.com/webconsole/softwarestore/store.do#!/135/663/21789  

 

Alternatively, follow steps 1-3 to manually download the Commvault report:

  1. Log into cloud.commvault.com and click the Software Store tile icon 
  2. Search the Store for Log4j and click the Download button for the “Log4J affected servers” report 
  3. Log into Command Center and navigate to Reports
  4. At the top right of the Reports page, click Actions and Import report. Proceed to select the downloaded report file to import into Command Center. 
  5. Now you can run the report.

This report will show you any servers with Cloud Apps, SQL Server, and Oracle Database packages installed that may be affected by Log4j vulnerability.
Note: If the resulting report shows No Data to Display, then there are no affected clients in this CommCell

The easiest course of action is to upgrade all servers listed in this report (Oracle, Cloud Apps, and SQL) – that would be the recommendation. However, at a minimum, servers with Database Archiving, Data Masking, or Extent based backups (SQL table level restore) features enabled should have highest priority as the vulnerable log4j package is actively used, while otherwise the packages are dormant.

 

Maintenance Releases

 

The table below outlines the specific Maintenance Releases that will both address Log4j 2.x vulnerabilities as well as update Log4j 1.x components to 2.17.1 (the latest release of Log4j)

Note: If the previous Log4j 2.16 hotfixes has already been applied, then this latest Maintenance Release is optional 

Feature Release

Maintenance Release

11.26

11.26.21

11.25

11.25.32

11.24

11.24.48

11.23

11.23.47

11.20

11.20.90

SP16

SP16.153

 

How to deploy Maintenance Release:

 

  1. First perform a disaster recovery backup using steps HERE .
  2. OPTIONAL: create a server group containing all the affected servers using instructions HERE.  This can make it easier to select servers for the upgrade process.
  3. Go to documentation to find the list of updates: https://documentation.commvault.com/11.24/essential/146231_security_vulnerability_and_reporting.html
  4. Download the maintenance pack for the version the CommServe is running on. 

    If you do not know the CommServe version, in Command Center search for About and click the About search result to bring up the version popup. 
  5. Extract the Maintenance Pack
  6. Follow instructions HERE to copy the software packages to the cache using Command Center.  
  7. Proceed to Install updates following instructions HERE .  You can update only the affected clients to avoid the CommServe services stopping, however it is recommended to update the CommServe and all affected servers as shown on the report for completeness.
  8. Once completed re-rerun the report to show that the servers have the appropriate fixes

Note: For instructions on how to apply Log4j 2.16 hotfixes on older Maintenance Release, please see FAQ

 

See Commvault Online Documentation for additional information:

https://documentation.commvault.com/11.25/essential/146231_security_vulnerability_and_reporting.html

 

HyperScale X and CDS (Hedvig)

 

For all detailed information on how to update HyperScale X and Commvault Distributed Storage (CDS) to address Log4j vulnerabilities, please see article here:

 

 

Log4j FAQ 

 

Q:   There is a new vulnerability in 2.15 is Commvault addressing this? 

A:   The LOG4J 2.15 version (GA Dec. 06, 2021) disabled the essential exploit functions by default was released last week on Dec 6, 2021. This was considered the market-acceptable, non-vulnerable upgrade package up to today.  

 The Apache organization released a new version, 2.16, on Monday, Dec.13, 2021, which physically removes the vulnerable functions. 

 This evening, the security groups issued a new vulnerability CVE-2021-45046 targeting concerns with the 2.15 version and recommending the shift to 2.16.   

  This significant change affects all client remediation methods, requiring an upgrade to version 2.16.  Log4j 2.16 hotfixes have now been released, please see table above

 

Q: When will new hotfixes be available for 2.16 log4j? 

A: Log4j 2.16 hotfixes have now been released, please see table above

 

Q:  I've noticed older 1.x versions of log4j being used in the platform.  Are these vulnerable? 

A:   We have some older instances in the installed component structure related to the older generation Log4J 1.x files which are not part of the current CVE Log4J 2.x vulnerability. We are doing further investigation on those conditions to determine a course of action.  

We do plan to remove all 1.x references in the Feb 1st maintenance release to prevent “false alarms”.  That version is not vulnerable to the current respective CVEs, but it would clear up the scanning concerns.

 

Q:  I noticed HyperScale 1.5 is using end of life versions of Log4j.  Is this being resolved? 

A:  The 1.x versions of log4j bundled with HyperScale 1.5 are maintained and supported by Redhat.  These versions are not affected by this CVE. 

 

Q: Are older versions like v10 and v9 affected?

A: These versions are not affected

 

Q: Why are some updates showing skipped during Copy to Cache?

A: These are updates for Operating Systems your CommCell does not have.  It’s more informational than error related.

 

Q: Why does the report show No Records Available or No Items to Display?

A: This means there are no affected clients in this CommCell

 

Q: What order should I apply the updates?

A: The Maintenance Release needs to be installed first, then the Hotfix Pack.  The best option is to use Copy to Cache, followed by pushing the updates out from the GUI as per the instructions.  This will ensure everything is applied as needed in the correct order.

 

Q: Can I remove versions manually?

A: No, removing anything manually will potentially cause features to not work properly.  Use the Maintenance Releases and Hotfix packs to remediate.

 

Q: Is Anti-virus a concern?

A: It is possible that an AV service may lock the affected files out of concern and cause features to not work properly.  Use the Maintenance Releases and Hotfix packs to remediate.

 

Q: How do I download Maintenance Release using CommCell Console?

A: Please follow Commvault Online Documentation steps below

https://documentation.commvault.com/11.25/expert/2705_downloading_commvault_software_using_commcell_console.html

 

Q: Is Metallic vulnerable to the vulnerability?

A: We have found that the Log4j vulnerability has no impact on Metallic or the security and privacy of your data backups. Metallic does not use the impacted libraries as per the Apache Log4j advisory.

We will continue to proactively monitor and provide any further updates, while customers with questions can reach out to Metallic.io/support.

 

Q: Log4j scanner is still picking up DbArchiveEngine.jar as potentially vulnerable?

A: Some Log4j scanners are actually incorrectly picking up DbArchiveEngine.jar as potentially vulnerable when in fact it is already patched. This is because the scanner was unable to determine the version of Log4j used and ending up marking it as “potentially vulnerable”. Please note that if you have patched Commvault clients with either the 2.16 hotfix or the latest Maintenance Release, then this DbArchiveEngine.jar binary is also patched and will not have the Log4j 0-day vulnerability. 

 

Q: I have updated to latest Maintenance Release but Log4j Affected Servers report is still showing my clients as not fixed?

A: There has been a new Log4j Affected Servers report released on December 22nd that has updated the checks to correctly report fixed for clients on the latest Maintenance Release. This new report is version 1.1.2.3 whereas the previous report is 1.1.2.2.

 

Q: How do I apply the Log4j hotfixes if I am already on the older minimum required Maintenance Release?

A: Please follow below steps:

  1. Ensure the Commserve and affected clients are on the minimum required Maintenance Release pack. 
    1. If not, please download and install using the CommCell Console 
    2. Alternatively, you may download the minimum required Maintenance Release from the links in the table below
  2. Download the Log4J-Fix pack for your version
  3. Unzip the contents of the download
  4. Run Copy To Cache and point to the folder created by the unzip to add the new updates to your software cache
  5. Push out updates to the clients
  6. Verify client status by checking the Log4j Affected Servers report or Client Details report or viewing the client properties

Log4j 2.16 fixes (CVE-2021-44228, CVE-2021-45046)

Feature Release

Minimum Required
Maintenance Release

Update Link (includes 2.16 fix)

Installed Windows
Updates

Installed
Unix Updates

11.26

11.26.2

11.26 Log4J-2.16 Fix

1755

1755

11.25

11.25.9

11.25 Log4J-2.16 Fix

2763

2779

2763

2779

11.24

11.24.23

11.24 Log4J-2.16 Fix

4552

4564

4551

4564

11.23

11.23.37

11.23 Log4J-2.16 Fix

4160

4178

4161

4178

11.22

11.22.50

11.22 Log4J-2.16 Fix

3911

3920

3912

3920

11.21

11.21.66

11.21 Log4J-2.16 Fix

3587

3599

3588

3599

11.20

11.20.77

11.20 Log4J-2.16 Fix

4562

4574

4561

4574

SP16

SP16.128

SP16 Log4J-2.16 Fix

2943

2946

2942

2946


344 replies

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

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.

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.

@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 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

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 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!

@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

@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 +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

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.

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

and any impat based on CVE-2021-44832?

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.

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.

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.

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
 

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 5
Badge +11

Top post has now been updated regarding the latest vulnerabilities. 

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
 

Badge +1

We are showing a new vulnerability with CommVault with Tenable.  See below.

It’s showing up on all our SQL servers, Media Agents and Exchange.

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +15

Hi @nizmoz 

Your screenshot is highlighting affected version 1.2.17 and CVE-2021-4104.

Please review the notes above in the original post which explain:


CVE-2021-4104: The Commvault software does not use the JMSAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about log4j 1.x versions does not affect any Commvault products.

and

Q:  I've noticed older 1.x versions of log4j being used in the platform.  Are these vulnerable? 

A:   We have some older instances in the installed component structure related to the older generation Log4J 1.x files which are not part of the current CVE Log4J 2.x vulnerability. We are doing further investigation on those conditions to determine a course of action.  

Thanks,

Stuart

Badge +1

Hi @nizmoz 

Your screenshot is highlighting affected version 1.2.17 and CVE-2021-4104.

Please review the notes above in the original post which explain:


CVE-2021-4104: The Commvault software does not use the JMSAppender module and, therefore, the vulnerability about log4j 1.x versions does not affect any Commvault products.

and

Q:  I've noticed older 1.x versions of log4j being used in the platform.  Are these vulnerable? 

A:   We have some older instances in the installed component structure related to the older generation Log4J 1.x files which are not part of the current CVE Log4J 2.x vulnerability. We are doing further investigation on those conditions to determine a course of action.  

Thanks,

Stuart

The files still exist, and our security team and management want them removed.  So can these safely be deleted if they are not being used?

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

We recommend against removing anything manually.  It’s better to wait for development to conduct a full review and provide a plan for remediation.  We don’t want to end up breaking any portion of any operation.

Userlevel 2
Badge +8

I have been told by our security team as well about wanting them removed as we show a critical vuln for 1.2.16.  

CRITICAL: Plugin Name: Apache Log4j Unsupported Version Detection Plugin output - Path : C:\Program Files\Commvault\ContentStore\CustomReportsEngine\WEB-INF\lib\log4j-1.2.16.jar Installed version : 1.2.16

 

Hoping Commvault will release an update to correct the version of the 1.x jar.

 

Thanks

BC..

 

Thanks

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

@bc1410 , dev is working on this now, though I can’t share a release date just yet.

Once it’s available, I’ll reply here and update the main post at the top.

Reply