httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: workaround for encoded slashes (%2f)
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2002 19:02:28 GMT
At 11:59 AM 11/1/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>> Your patch will simply let the %2F through, but then a later section
>> of code will translate them to / and we've opened a security hole
>> in the main server.  I'd rather move the rejection code to the
>> place where a decision has to be made (like the directory walk),
>> but I have no time to do it myself.  I think it is reasonable to
>> allow %2F under some circumstances, but only in content handlers
>> and only as part of path-info and not within the real directory
>> structure.
>is this a veto?  because i'd like to understand how this
>'opens a security hole' available to client-side exploitation
>without server-side deficiencies (such as a poorly-coded cgi
>script).  if there is none, i don't see why this cannot go
>in as a starting point.

Yes, it's a veto to introduce a security hole as a 'starting point' that
someone might get around to cleaning up later.

If you want to do something this radical, you are going to need to
float it into 2.1-dev.  Then we can at least insist that 2.2 module
authors do the 'right thing' for security, whatever that is.

Anyone looking at unparsed_uri is subject to falling into this hole.
That would be a good place to start looking for newly introduced
vulnerabilities with your patch.


View raw message