Closed
Bug 1212600
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
No upper limit on digest256 list file size
Categories
(Toolkit :: Safe Browsing, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla43
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox48 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: mwobensmith, Assigned: dimi)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: tpe-seceng)
Attachments
(1 file)
Some error/boundary tests revealed that Firefox accepted and parsed an 88mb list file. We don't anticipate ever supporting a list file that big, and in fact would like to limit the list size to something more reasonable, such as 32mb.
As per discussion with François, we'd probably want to reject this condition at download time, parse time, or both.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Blocks: 1149867
Component: DOM: Security → Safe Browsing
Product: Core → Toolkit
Summary: No upper limit on shaver list file size → No upper limit on digest256 list file size
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
See also bug 1212601.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: francois → nobody
Whiteboard: tpe-seceng
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → dlee
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/42765/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/42765/
Attachment #8735383 -
Flags: review?(francois)
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735383 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1212600 - No upper limit on digest256 list file size. r=francois
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/42765/#review39233
Attachment #8735383 -
Flags: review?(francois) → review+
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735383 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1212600 - No upper limit on digest256 list file size. r=francois
gcp, does that look reasonable to you too?
Attachment #8735383 -
Flags: review?(gpascutto)
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735383 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1212600 - No upper limit on digest256 list file size. r=francois
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/42765/#review39479
Looks fine, but we should consider gathering these limits together. (i.e. this + MAX_CHUNK_SIZE, MAX_CHUNK_RANGE, etc)
Attachment #8735383 -
Flags: review?(gpascutto) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•