nanog mailing list archives

Re: Log4j mitigation

From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:24:22 -0800

The bigger problem seems to be the ever growing list of products you may be using which depend on it potentially 
without your knowledge.

Owen

On Dec 11, 2021, at 03:41 , Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:

This is largely a patching exercise for people that use the software. If you use it, please patch. 

Sent via RFC1925 complaint device

On Dec 10, 2021, at 10:59 PM, Andy Ringsmuth <andy () andyring com> wrote:

The intricacies of Java are over my head, but I’ve been reading about this Log4j issue that sounds pretty bad.

What do we know about this? What, if anything, can a network operator do to help mitigate this? Or even an end user?

----
Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 304-0083
andy () andyring com

Current thread:

Log4j mitigation Andy Ringsmuth (Dec 10)
- Re: Log4j mitigation Jared Mauch (Dec 11)
  - Re: Log4j mitigation Owen DeLong via NANOG (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Jared Mauch (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Carsten Bormann (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Alain Hebert (Dec 13)
    - RE: Log4j mitigation Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Dec 13)
- Re: Log4j mitigation Nick Hilliard (Dec 11)
  - RE: Log4j mitigation Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Jörg Kost (Dec 13)
    - RE: Log4j mitigation Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Jörg Kost (Dec 13)
    - Re: Log4j mitigation Saku Ytti (Dec 13)

(Thread continues...)