Patching for CVE-2022-26134 without maintenance/support

[Jeff McMurray]

Our maintenance/support contract ended, we're on LT 7.13

Are we able to patch to 7.13.7 without an active support license?

The plan was to migrate to the cloud service, which is why it lapsed.

[Robert Wen_ReleaseTEAM_ · Accepted solution]

Hello @Jeff McMurray ! Welcome to the Atlassian Community!

To update your version of Confluence, even to the 7.13.7 version, you'll need an active license/maintenance agreement.

You actually need to be current for your migration as well.

One solution I see is getting a trial Data Center license.  Details are here: https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/migrate-to-cloud-with-an-expired-server-license/

[Jeff McMurray]

Current as in an active license, or current as in the latest patch?

[Robert Wen_ReleaseTEAM_]

Current as in active license/maintenance agreement.

[Jeff McMurray]

Ok, thanks, it looks like the trial and migrate will work.

Thanks for the help.

[Christian M.]

Wait, so does this mean that there is no fix for CVE-2022-26134 if you don't currently have support/maintenance? Our maintenance is also lapsed and we are on confluence server 7.4.3. This doesn't seem acceptable for Atlassian to leave those without maintenance exposed to a critical remote code execution vulnerability currently being exploited by threat actors. Is everyone in this boat rushing out to purchase thousands of dollars in maintenance just so they dont get hacked?

[Jeff McMurray]

Yeah, pretty ridiculous.  It seems like it should be a patch outside of maintenance contracts.

[rodolfo [Clearvision]]

What about applying the mitigation described in the advisory? 
That should work regarding the license status if I'm not mistaken.

[Christian M.]

Thanks Rodolfo, We have already implemented those changes, however Atlassian lists it specifically as a TEMPORARY (in bold) workaround, which is the cause of my concern. I would feel better about it if they didn't emphasize that it should be temporary. I guess to that response, my question is... Are we safe to implement this "temporary workaround" for a few years, or does it still leave some vulnerabilities?