I am looking at the release-2.x branch. I will set it to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
soon (AFK)

Gary

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 16:51 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Its version is currently 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT but I don’t know why. I think it
> should be set to 1.0.0.  We aren’t going to do a release of log4j-tools
> very often. Certainly not as frequently as log4j itself. It hardly ever
> changes.  It needs an independent versioning scheme.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 10, 2020, at 1:50 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the log4j-tools version should be set to 2.14.0 for a RC to match
> > the release of log4j. Thoughts?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 15:45 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> OK. Then I guess I forgot since it has been so long.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>> On Dec 10, 2020, at 1:09 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But there *is* an allowed list of Java classes and packages configured
> >>> in org.apache.logging.log4j.util.FilteredObjectInputStream which the
> >>> log4j-server module's servers uses through
> >> ObjectInputStreamLogEventBridge.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:33 AM Ralph Goers <
> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There is a Jira issue to do that but as far as I know the Security bug
> >> was
> >>>> never addressed in that code. In a quick glance at it I still see it
> >>>> supporting Java serialized objects without any kind of whitelisting. I
> >>>> don’t see anything in that repo besides the log server and I wouldn’t
> >> want
> >>>> to release something with known security problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 3, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've never released from
> >>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=logging-log4j-tools.git and
> I'm
> >>>>> currently using a SNAPSHOT build. Any thoughts on releasing from
> there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Reply via email to