[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Oct 2016 08:20:21 -0400 |
Earl wrote:
> For any file nmh creates based on email parameter input, it should run it
> through a sanitizer to remove any characters deemed invalid and remove any
> pathname components.
For security reasons, this filename will be ignored if it begins
with the character '/', '.', '|', or '!', or if it contains the
character '%'.
> For example, what if I have:
>
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="/etc/passwd"
>
> or relative pathname attacks using "../.."?
The /etc/passwd or relative pathanme will be ignored, and a name of
the form message#.part#.subtype will be used instead (assuming no
profile override).
> I do not recall if nmh checks if a file with same name already exists.
It can, starting with 1.6, using the mhstore(1) -clobber switch.
> If we are to be security conscience, filename parameter should be ignored,
> with files stored based on content-type, or at a minimum, just use the
> filename parameter extension. An option can be provided to specify that the
> filename parameter be honored, but even then, only use the basename after it
> has been sanitized.
Yup, we're there. The mhstore switch you refer to is -auto; the
default is -noauto.
mhstore also has an -outfile switch, so the user can specify a
particular filename (to store all selected content).
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters,
David Levine <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/03