In many ways I lead a charmed life and hold a wide range of privileges in my hand. Not least, this week just gone, the fact that I’m a software developer who generally works with the .NET software stack. More specifically, I am not a software developer who works with Java. Java developers have not, generally speaking, been having a good week.
This is all because of a software vulnerability discovered just over a week ago in a Java library called “log4j”. To summarise, for non-experts: “log4j” is a logging library. No, not the let’s-clear-the-rainforests sort. “Logging” means your software writing diagnostic information as it goes along: records such as “user etoainshrdlu asked to see their bank balance at 9.10am from this address with that web browser”. You can see why…
Regular reader E Shrdlu (from Clacton) writes: Oi! You can’t go around giving my bank balance to people!
Hush now, I was just using you as an example! You can see why it’s useful to have this information stored away somewhere, and log4j is a software library that makes it really easy to do. Virtually all Java server-side code out there uses log4j somewhere inside it, to handle this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, log4j has a few handy features that were originally intended to be useful features, but aren’t necessarily a good idea to have running on an internet-facing server that does important work such as process your banking requests. Particularly, in this case, if you put a certain specialist type of URL into a log record, log4j will see it, try to download another program from it, and will then run that program in a certain well-defined way. Of course, you might say, there’s nothing wrong with that because all of the log record messages are just written by the bank’s own software developers, so everything’s perfectly safe. However, as I said above, one thing they may very well be logging is which browser you happen to be using, because that’s very useful diagnostic data if people start having problems. “Which browser you happen to be using”, though, is just a field that you send them, and if you know what you’re doing, you can change it to whatever you want to. Including a special type of URL which will…well, hopefully you get the picture. And now you’re running whatever programs you like on one of your bank’s internal servers. Ah. You can see now why Java developers have not been having a good week.
The fix for this is straightforward, but rolling the fix out will have involved a huge proportion of the Java code running in the world being checked, double-checked, and redeployed when it’s known to be safe. Moreover, all of the developers doing this will have had several queries a day from their managers asking just how much they are exposed to this issue. I know: I’ve had several myself, even though my response is straightforwardly “we don’t run any Java code at all, so don’t worry.” I do tell them to tell the clients we have thoroughly and conscientiously audited our systems because from a client-relations point of view it does sound a bit more professional than “no, and our tech lead is very glad of her career choices”. But it still means plenty of messages for me to answer.
Incidentally, I don’t feel any sort of schadenfreude about this, in case you were wondering. I genuinely feel sorry for a lot of people I know, who will not have had a good week fixing this stuff. I’ve worked in big banks and other similar organisations, and I know a lot of former colleagues and current friends who will have spent the last week focusing on this above all else. It’s not nice when you are suddenly bowled by a risk like this; and moreover, it’s not as if Java is uniquely likely to suffer from this type of problem. There are nuances to this that I may come back to in a later post; but next time something like this happens, the person fixing it might well be me.