CVE-2026-34479

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.

Weakness

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Improper encoding or escaping can allow attackers to change the commands that are sent to another component, inserting malicious commands instead. Most products follow a certain protocol that uses structured messages for communication between components, such as queries or commands. These structured messages can contain raw data interspersed with metadata or control information. For example, “GET /index.html HTTP/1.1” is a structured message containing a command (“GET”) with a single argument ("/index.html") and metadata about which protocol version is being used (“HTTP/1.1”). If an application uses attacker-supplied inputs to construct a structured message without properly encoding or escaping, then the attacker could insert special characters that will cause the data to be interpreted as control information or metadata. Consequently, the component that receives the output will perform the wrong operations, or otherwise interpret the data incorrectly.

Potential Mitigations

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
• Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
• If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
• For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/104.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/73.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/81.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/85.html

References

• https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/4078
• https://lists.apache.org/thread/gd0hp6mj17rn3kj279vgy4p7kd4zz5on
• https://logging.apache.org/cyclonedx/vdr.xml
• https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/migrate-from-log4j1.html
• https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2026-34479
• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/04/10/8