Skip to main content

We do not retest System [..] every time a new version of Java is released.

This post’s title is a quote from Oracle technical support on a ticket we opened to get help running one of their products on a current, patched JRE.

Oracle’s response:

“1. Please do not upgrade Java if you do not have to
2. If you have to upgrade Java, please test this on your test server before implemeting [sic] on production
3. On test and on production, please make a full backup of your environment (files and database) before upgrading Java and make sure you can roll back if any issue occurs.”

In other words – you are on your own. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees and maintenance that you pay us don’t do you sh!t for security.

Let’s pretend that we have a simple, clear and unambiguous standard: ‘There will be no unpatched Java runtime on any server’.

There isn’t a chance in hell that standard can be met.

This seems to be a cross vendor problem. IBM’s remote server management requires a JRE on the system that has the application that connects to the chassis and allows remote chassis administration. As far as we can tell, and as far as IBM’s support is telling us, there is no possibility of managing an IBM xSeries using a patched JRE.

“It is not recommended to upgrade or change the JRE version that's built inside Director. Doing so will create an unsupported configuration as Director has only been tested to work with its built-in version.”

We have JRE’s everywhere. Most of them are embedded in products. The vendors of the products rarely if ever provide security related updates for their embedded JRE’s. When there are JRE updates, we open up support calls with them watch them dance around while they tell us that we need to leave them unpatched.

My expectations? If a vendor bundles or requires third party software such as a JRE, that vendor will treat a security vulnerability in the dependent third party software as though it were a vulnerability in their own software, and they will not make me open up support requests for something this obvious.

It’s the least they could do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…