This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 30, 2023. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
Report CVEs identified - #60
Merged
Merged
Conversation
ericchiang
approved these changes
May 9, 2022
junjiey1988
reviewed
May 9, 2022
junjiey1988
reviewed
May 9, 2022
junjiey1988
reviewed
May 9, 2022
junjiey1988
left a comment
junjiey1988
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mostly LGTM with one question and a minor nit.
Updates jar.Parse to return the specific CVEs identified during the scan. To ensure that refactoring of detection logic is correct, I've tested this on a corpus of all log4j2 releases through 2.16.0 and verified that there are no false positives or false negatives.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Updates jar.Parse to return the specific CVEs identified during the
scan.
To ensure that refactoring of detection logic is correct, I've tested
this on a corpus of all log4j2 releases through 2.16.0 and verified
that there are no false positives or false negatives.