activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: BytesMessage vs. already compressed byte[] payloads - fixed in 4.x?
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:44:30 GMT
well the jms client the put the byte[] into the message uncompressed.  It's
ActiveMQ under the covers that's doing the compression.  So if it had to
deliver the message to a stomp client, I think it's normal if ActiveMQ
uncompresses that data.

On 10/24/06, sileshi <sileshikassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >
> >>Amq 4 should not be uncompressing message contents (unless it's sending
> to
> a
> >>STOMP client I think).  Each message has flag indicating if the message
> >>content is compressed or not.
> > Well, even for sending to Stomp, AMQ should not uncompress the bytes
> > message.
> > The contract between Java JMS client and Message Broker is to transmit
> the
> > byte streams to consumers with no alterations. This is true of
> > irrespective of
> > the consumer is Java JMS and Stomp client.
> >
> > The thinking is RPC  can be built over Java JMS and Stomp. Thus, RPC
> > implmentation
> > may have one or more protocol (one protocol envolpes another) encoding,
> > and data
> > that is compressed using standard or non-standard techniques.
> >
> > The way to deal with this is by not interpreting/altering the byte
> > streams.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sileshi
> >
> > On 10/18/06, Holger Hoffstaette <holger@wizards.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> ActiveMQ 3.x unconditionally uncompresses BytesMessages whose input
> >> byte[]
> >> was already compressed with the JDK-builtin GZip stuff. This is
> obviously
> >> wrong since the compressed original byte[] should come out on the other
> >> end, not the huge uncompressed payload. Is this fixed in 4.x? I figured
> I
> >> ask before I forward-port. This bug makes ActiveMQ susceptible to DOS
> >> attacks, even unintentionally if someone sends a meager 10 MB of
> >> compressed XML over the wire that is exploded to >1GB, taking the VM
> with
> >> it.
> >> A simple ActiveMQ-specific prepended tag indicating transport-level
> >> compression (or not) would help to distinguish between the two. If this
> >> warrants a JIRA please yell.
> >
> >
> >
> > You want to distinguish between compressed and uncompressed messages?
> > This
> > can be done on a per message basis.  I don't think it has anything to do
> > with the transport.
> >
> > thanks
> >> Holger
> >>
> >> PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_of_death, s/zip/gzip/r ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/BytesMessage-vs.-already-compressed-byte---payloads---fixed-in-4.x--tf2469871.html#a6977787
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message