RVS_UIKit_Toolbox VS log4shell-tools

> I don't think I could in good conscience recommend your approach as a general practice.

I can live with that, but ... (There's always a "but")

I am not happy at all, with the general industry practice of writing every project to be something that can be understood by inexperienced, undisciplined coders.

Every language and programming methodology has an "advanced" type of thing, requiring people to have experience and/or book-larnin'.

I write Swift at a fairly advanced level. I am not at the level of some heavy-duty advanced Swift people, but I am pretty "idiomatic," in my approach. It is not "rewritten TypeScript," like so much code out there.

My code is very well-documented, and I hold myself to standards of Quality that most folks in the industry consider to be obsessive to the point of insanity. My testing code usually dwarfs my implementation code, and my documentation is, let's say ... complete. You can see what I mean in my latest module[0].

I won't write junk, so that someone used to junk, can comprehend it. If people aren't willing to learn enough to understand my middle-of-the-road semi-advanced Swift, then I can't help them. Swift is an awesome language. I feel that we are doing ourselves a disservice, if we do not explore it.

I write for myself. I write code and documentation that I want to use (and I use it). I really don't care, whether or not someone else "approves" of it. I am not relying on others to review, maintain, or patch my code.

When I do use other people's code, I vet it fairly carefully. Including a dependency is a really serious matter. I'm handing full control of my execution context to code that someone else wrote. I'd damn well better take that Responsibility seriously.

[0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_UIKit_Toolbox

I'm seeing this as well. While the amount of traffic has certainly decreased compared to the first couple of days after the CVE was announced, https://log4shell.tools is still being used by people every day.

e.g. from log4j. Taken from https://log4shell.tools/

I run tests with https://log4shell.tools, and it seems I'm vulnerable on client side, but my server is safe, which makes sense as I compiled the .jar 2 weeks ago with BuildTools as indicated here https://www.spigotmc.org/threads/spigot-security-releases-%E2%80%94-1-8-8%E2%80%931-18.537204/

You're right, but this has always been the trade off with tools like this. You put some trust in the tool's authors and gain some insight in return. Remember the services that tested for Heartbleed (e.g. https://filippo.io/Heartbleed/)? Fairly similar trade-off, but still these tools were widely used.

If you really don't trust me and have some technical know-how, you can self host the service. It's open source: https://github.com/alexbakker/log4shell-tools.

I can't say I'm feeling the same. Still lots of people testing over at https://log4shell.tools almost a week after this vulnerability became widely known. Plenty of people still discovering they're vulnerable as well. I think it's likely that these are just the people who know they're using log4j. If you're running a black box product from a vendor you'll have no clue you're vulnerable until it's too late.

I have a feeling this vulnerability is going to be with us for years. Shameless plug: I built a tool that assists in detecting whether you're vulnerable to this or the previous CVE: https://log4shell.tools. Just enter the JNDI URI it gives you anywhere you suspect it ends up causing a message lookup in log4j. If log4j does so much as a DNS lookup, this tool will tell you about it.

Done! https://github.com/alexbakker/log4shell-tools