IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] #19: Do not sniff PDF

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 24 October 2011 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4291921F8C7C for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eIJuBbW2LMNx for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0725621F8C78 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 08:24:45 -0000
Received: from p5DCC3E65.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.62.101] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 10:24:45 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/zLbx90OTzCZFjE4EMJF0VewO8o1MdA71Kg8pHzh GwVpf+2ynVNEia
Message-ID: <4EA520CA.9070700@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:24:42 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
References: <059.38de41cc08d30327b007c754bc555885@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4EA4D547.4030805@gondrom.org> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0605EFA3C1@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EA51F11.7090504@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <4EA51F11.7090504@gondrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] #19: Do not sniff PDF
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:50 -0000

On 2011-10-24 10:17, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> ...
>> ((Maybe this is another issue? I just wonder if the algorithm for "no
>> content-type" is the same, needs to be the same, as the algorithm for
>> "content-type via HTTP".)
>
> I can imagine that the cases "no content-type given" and "wrong
> content-type given" could be treated differently, but I am not sure
> about it.
> ...

If you can define "wrong content-type" :-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email