You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2012/11/26 19:38:08 UTC

Re: svn commit: r1413732 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules: generators/mod_info.c generators/mod_status.c mappers/mod_imagemap.c proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c proxy/mod_proxy_ftp.c

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:18:57 -0000
jim@apache.org wrote:


> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c Mon Nov 26 17:18:54 2012
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static char *imap_url(request_rec *r, co
>      if (!strcasecmp(value, "referer")) {
>          referer = apr_table_get(r->headers_in, "Referer");
>          if (referer && *referer) {
> -            return ap_escape_html(r->pool, referer);
> +            return referer;
>          }

Isn't this the opposite change to the others?  And a case that looks
at first glance to be potentially exploitable from a third-party site?


-- 
Nick Kew

Re: svn commit: r1413732 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules: generators/mod_info.c generators/mod_status.c mappers/mod_imagemap.c proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c proxy/mod_proxy_ftp.c

Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
It's to avoid double escaping...

On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:18:57 -0000
> jim@apache.org wrote:
> 
> 
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c Mon Nov 26 17:18:54 2012
>> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static char *imap_url(request_rec *r, co
>>     if (!strcasecmp(value, "referer")) {
>>         referer = apr_table_get(r->headers_in, "Referer");
>>         if (referer && *referer) {
>> -            return ap_escape_html(r->pool, referer);
>> +            return referer;
>>         }
> 
> Isn't this the opposite change to the others?  And a case that looks
> at first glance to be potentially exploitable from a third-party site?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nick Kew
>