Re: Log4j mitigation

["Jörg Kost" <jk () ip-clear de>]

I understand what you want to say, but I disagree in this point. When 
you have a cup full of water and someone remotely can drill holes into 
the out shell, just checking the bottom for leaks won't help. You may 
want a new mug instead. :-) The initial posting was about looking at the 
bottom only.

Now we have the long journey from Java, Ldap, DNS, Birds and Coffee Cups 
behind us. Does anyone else have any advice on prevention?

On 13 Dec 2021, at 13:35, Joe Greco wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 01:12:25PM +0100, J??rg Kost wrote:
> > Yes, but it won't change the outcome. We shall run with assuming 
> > breach
> > paradigm. In this scenario, it might be useless looking around for 
> > port
> > 389 only; it can give you a wrong assumption.
>
> That's like arguing that it isn't worth having a canary in the coal
> mine.  Which, come to think of it, was implicitly the point of the
> message I sent that you're replying to as well.  Just because there
> are other sources of fatalities, doesn't mean you can't check for
> the quick obvious stuff.  In my experience, this tends to reveal
> issues that might have been forgotten or never known about to begin
> with.  Most organizations have a variety of zombie legacy systems
> that were set up by people on staff several generations ago.
>
> The more tools at your disposal to identify breached systems, the
> better.