Skip to content

Implement workaround in accumulo-env.sh for OpenTelemetry CVE#6288

Merged
dlmarion merged 3 commits intoapache:2.1from
dlmarion:otel-cve-workaround
Apr 2, 2026
Merged

Implement workaround in accumulo-env.sh for OpenTelemetry CVE#6288
dlmarion merged 3 commits intoapache:2.1from
dlmarion:otel-cve-workaround

Conversation

@dlmarion
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dlmarion dlmarion commented Apr 2, 2026

Added a system property in accumulo-env.sh to disable the RMI instrumentation of the OpenTelemetry Java Agent. See https://github.com/apache/accumulo/security/dependabot/25 for more information.

Added a system property in accumulo-env.sh to disable the RMI
instrumentation of the OpenTelemetry Java Agent. See
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/security/dependabot/25 for
more information.
@dlmarion dlmarion added this to the 2.1.5 milestone Apr 2, 2026
@dlmarion dlmarion self-assigned this Apr 2, 2026
@dlmarion
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

dlmarion commented Apr 2, 2026

If #6289 is merged to main, then this change can be ignored in main

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ddanielr ddanielr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't we just update the version of opentelemetry-bom to 1.60.1 and opentelemetry-javaagent to 2.26.1?
Are we stuck waiting on a new micrometer release?

@dlmarion
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

dlmarion commented Apr 2, 2026

Why can't we just update the version of opentelemetry-bom to 1.60.1 and opentelemetry-javaagent to 2.26.1? Are we stuck waiting on a new micrometer release?

We are constrained by the version of protobuf-java that we are dependent on in the 2.1.x line.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@keith-turner keith-turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If #6289 is merged to main, then this change can be ignored in main

Would it cause any problems to leave those changes in main even if 6289 is merged? Seems like for something like rmi it should only be enabled if needed anyway.

dlmarion and others added 2 commits April 2, 2026 11:22
Co-authored-by: Daniel Roberts <ddanielr@gmail.com>
@dlmarion
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

dlmarion commented Apr 2, 2026

If #6289 is merged to main, then this change can be ignored in main

Would it cause any problems to leave those changes in main even if 6289 is merged? Seems like for something like rmi it should only be enabled if needed anyway.

I guess it doesn't hurt to leave it on the merge. There are likely a bunch of other options we are not specifying though, leaving this one option in could imply to the user that all other options are safe.

@keith-turner
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

leaving this one option in could imply to the user that all other options are safe.

That seems like a good reason to remove it in main, users should look at all the options when configuring it.

@dlmarion dlmarion merged commit ffbfb3e into apache:2.1 Apr 2, 2026
9 checks passed
@dlmarion dlmarion deleted the otel-cve-workaround branch April 2, 2026 18:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants