FKIE_CVE-2026-34479

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-04-10 16:16 - Updated: 2026-04-13 15:02
Summary
The Log4j1XmlLayout from the Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge fails to escape characters forbidden by the XML 1.0 standard, producing malformed XML output. Conforming XML parsers are required to reject documents containing such characters with a fatal error, which may cause downstream log processing systems to drop or fail to index affected records. Two groups of users are affected: * Those using Log4j1XmlLayout directly in a Log4j Core 2 configuration file. * Those using the Log4j 1 configuration compatibility layer with org.apache.log4j.xml.XMLLayout specified as the layout class. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge version 2.25.4, which corrects this issue. Note: The Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge is deprecated and will not be present in Log4j 3. Users are encouraged to consult the Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 migration guide https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/migrate-from-log4j1.html , and specifically the section on eliminating reliance on the bridge.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version

{
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "The Log4j1XmlLayout from the Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge fails to escape characters forbidden by the XML 1.0 standard, producing malformed XML output. Conforming XML parsers are required to reject documents containing such characters with a fatal error, which may cause downstream log processing systems to drop or fail to index affected records.\n\nTwo groups of users are affected:\n\n  *  Those using Log4j1XmlLayout directly in a Log4j Core 2 configuration file.\n  *  Those using the Log4j 1 configuration compatibility layer with org.apache.log4j.xml.XMLLayout specified as the layout class.\n\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge version 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.\n\nNote: The Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge is deprecated and will not be present in Log4j 3. Users are encouraged to consult the  Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 migration guide https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/migrate-from-log4j1.html , and specifically the section on eliminating reliance on the bridge."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-34479",
  "lastModified": "2026-04-13T15:02:06.187",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV40": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackRequirements": "NONE",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "baseScore": 6.9,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "subIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
          "version": "4.0",
          "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
          "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
        },
        "source": "security@apache.org",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-04-10T16:16:31.270",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/4078"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/gd0hp6mj17rn3kj279vgy4p7kd4zz5on"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "url": "https://logging.apache.org/cyclonedx/vdr.xml"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "url": "https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/migrate-from-log4j1.html"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "url": "https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2026-34479"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/10/8"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security@apache.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-116"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…