Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: SEC-1034: log4j migration to confluent repackaged version #5783

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 9, 2020
Merged

fix: SEC-1034: log4j migration to confluent repackaged version #5783

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 9, 2020

Conversation

niteshmor
Copy link
Contributor

@niteshmor niteshmor commented Jul 8, 2020

  • Confluent repackaged version fixes CVE-2019-17571
  • common/pom.xml excludes default log4j as a transitive dependency, and the repackaged version must be explicitly added.

Ref: confluentinc/common#270

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 8, 2020

@confluentinc It looks like @niteshmor just signed our Contributor License Agreement. 👍

Always at your service,

clabot

@niteshmor niteshmor marked this pull request as ready for review July 8, 2020 07:55
@niteshmor niteshmor requested a review from a team as a code owner July 8, 2020 07:55
@niteshmor niteshmor changed the title SEC-1034: log4j migration to confluent repackaged version fix: SEC-1034: log4j migration to confluent repackaged version Jul 8, 2020
@niteshmor
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that there is a cyclic dependency here. There's a PR in common which needs to get merged first. Once that PR gets merged, the 6.0.x + master branches in this repository will start seeing a failure. This PR will be the fix for those failures, and it should be merged once common has been updated.
Context: confluentinc/common#270 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

@vcrfxia vcrfxia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants