log4j Exploit

Hi all,

We have just published an article about the an exploit in the log4j logging library. Pulse 6 could be used to exploit the vulnerability but the attacker would need admin permissions in Pulse.

If you have Pulse 6 you should apply one of the fixes in the article.


Hi @tryan ,

May I assume the log4j download version is 2.1.5+?

I tried to download today, it’s already 2.1.6.



Yep, 2.15 or greater (not 2.1.5).


The latest release is 2.16.0. Some initial changes were introduced in 2.15.0 to resolve the issue, and some more comprehensive changes were made in 2.16.0 and released yesterday.



I have updated the article. They they have completely removed the functionality that was the cause of the exploit.

I know it says that PAW is affected but it seems ambiguous whether PAL is affected? Do you guys have any guidance on that?

Hi @james.geraci,

From my understanding PAL local is not impacted, TM1Web uses version 1 of log4j and the server itself is C++. If you look in the install directory no v2 log4j jar files can be found. PAW and CA both have v2 jar files.

That should of course be confirmed by IBM.

Hi @james.geraci,

See IBMs statement in Security Bulletin: IBM Planning Analytics 2.0: Apache log4j Vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228)? β€œWithin IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, only the IBM Planning Analytics Workspace component of IBM Planning Analytics is affected by a security vulnerability.”

If you are interested in Cognos Analytics (even just for CAM) see Security Bulletin: IBM Cognos Analytics: Apache log4j Vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228)? β€œIBM Cognos Analytics is affected by a security vulnerability. Apache Log4j is used by IBM Cognos Analytics as part of its logging infrastructure.”


This whole Log4j saga is getting even more interesting following discovery that 2.15 has a critical vulnerability 2.16 turned out to have high so 2.17 contains the fix for it:


Should we then just copy 2.17 to elasticsearch lib folder or whatever library is the most recent?

Ξ—ΞΉ @pgrochola,

If log4j is recommending to go to 2.17. do so. I suggest to test it first in a dev environment.



We are testing the impact of 2.17 as well.




We performed tests with 2.17 and it is working fine. the suggestion now onwards is to deploy 2.16 or later.



1 Like