Skip to content

[GHSA-6hg6-v5c8-fphq] The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org...#7356

Open
ppkarwasz wants to merge 1 commit intoppkarwasz/advisory-improvement-7356from
ppkarwasz-GHSA-6hg6-v5c8-fphq
Open

[GHSA-6hg6-v5c8-fphq] The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org...#7356
ppkarwasz wants to merge 1 commit intoppkarwasz/advisory-improvement-7356from
ppkarwasz-GHSA-6hg6-v5c8-fphq

Conversation

@ppkarwasz
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Updates

  • Affected products
  • CVSS v4
  • Description
  • Source code location
  • Summary

Comments
Improve formatting and component identity based on:

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 10, 2026 19:16
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the base branch from main to ppkarwasz/advisory-improvement-7356 April 10, 2026 19:17
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Updates the unreviewed advisory record for GHSA-6hg6-v5c8-fphq (CVE-2026-34477) to better reflect Apache Log4j Core impact/metadata and improve the rendered advisory text.

Changes:

  • Added a clearer summary and reformatted details with markdown links.
  • Replaced the placeholder/empty affected list with explicit Maven package ranges for Log4j Core (2.x and 3.0.0 pre-releases).
  • Simplified the CVSS v4 vector string and added an explicit PACKAGE reference URL.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

],
"details": "The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName system property, but not when configured through the verifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName attribute of the <Ssl> element.\n\nAlthough the verifyHostName configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.\n\nA network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:\n\n * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.\n * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.\n * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.\nThis issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate verifyHostname https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.",
"summary": "Apache Log4j Core: `verifyHostName` attribute silently ignored in TLS configuration",
"details": "The fix for CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the [`log4j2.sslVerifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName) system property, but not when configured through the [`verifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName) attribute of the `<Ssl>` element.\n\nAlthough the `verifyHostName` configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.\n\nA network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:\n\n * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.\n * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.\n * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.\n\nThis issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate [`verifyHostname`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName) attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.",
Copy link

Copilot AI Apr 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The details string still contains multiple double-spaces (e.g., "The fix for CVE-2025-68161" and before the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName link). Since this PR is improving formatting, please normalize these to single spaces for readability and consistent rendering.

Suggested change
"details": "The fix for CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the [`log4j2.sslVerifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName) system property, but not when configured through the [`verifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName) attribute of the `<Ssl>` element.\n\nAlthough the `verifyHostName` configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.\n\nA network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:\n\n * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.\n * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.\n * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.\n\nThis issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate [`verifyHostname`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName) attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.",
"details": "The fix for CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the [`log4j2.sslVerifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName) system property, but not when configured through the [`verifyHostName`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName) attribute of the `<Ssl>` element.\n\nAlthough the `verifyHostName` configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.\n\nA network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:\n\n * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.\n * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.\n * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.\n\nThis issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate [`verifyHostname`](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName) attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.",

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds reasonable and could be added.

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.

2 participants