I thought reading the Veracode State of Log4j Vulnerabilites: How Much Did Log4Shell Change? by Chris Eng would be a bit of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). I was pleased to see that it wasn’t. They provided some great numbers on Log4J and remediation efforts. I was also happy to see them recognize that developers fix vulnerabilities when alerted about them quickly. This is something I talk about a lot in my presentations and with security folks. Developers want to get this right and having right approach and empathy with vulnerability management will get them to buy into these efforts.

The next line though says that the data contradicts the developers response because there is so much Log4j out there. Reviewing the CVEs in the article most of the remaining Log4J is in other packages. This is a problem with packages and open source. A package can be buried in another package. This was highlighted several years ago with the left-pad incident. A disgruntled developer removed a small bit of code that added a left-pad to the side of a website from NPM. It took down thousands of website because that line of code was buried in other packages.

This is why security needs to take a balanced approach to vulnerabilities and not lean only on severity rating. We need to be building proof of concepts. The reason why Log4j was such a massive thing was because it was buried in other packages. While it might be in another package it might not be used or accessible by attacker. In the case that it was it’s important to understand what it gives an attacker.

This is where the balance comes in for security. Just because the vulnerability is an 8-10 severity doesn’t mean that’s it’s actual severity in each environment. If it’s note exploitable it’s more like a 1-3 severity. Which moves it down the priority list of vulnerabilities of which there are usually hundreds of thousands.

Don’t get me wrong you want to get those vulnerabilities addressed but the timeline for getting them addressed changes. When I was leading the effort for Log4j remediation in our environment we used the pentest team to find what was exploitable externally. After remediating those vulnerabilities we looked internally. Most vulnerabilities could be patch but internal couldn’t be updated immediately and required a larger upgrade to accomplish. This is where we established timelines with those teams to get the vulnerability remediated because we knew what needed addressing immediately and what could take more time Just a blanket patch it all now would interrupt business processes, projects, and create hard feelings.

It’s good to note that Log4j is still out there and probably extremely important for companies to patch. Security needs to identify how much of it is actually vulnerable and work with other departments and teams to figure out the best timeline. Development teams need to be focused on more immediate issues such as the Atlassian server having a vulnerability or the latest malicious NPM package. Those are more important than a two-year old vulnerability that may or may not be exploitable. If it is exploitable go patch now!

Chucking vulnerabilities over a wall to developers is never a good strategy and will waste a lot of time and effort and degrade trust between departments.

If you are in need of consulting services on vulnerability manager or application security click the contact button below and reach out. I’m happy to have a conversation about your struggles and identify how I can best help.

This blog post first appear on Exploring Information Security.