Re: "file:" URLs?

On Mon, 20 August 12:04 Toralf Lund wrote:

> > My take on this issue.  File URLs referencing localhost, explicitly or
> > implicitly, in a message should be regarded as a potential security
> > problem
> > and disallowed.  I cannot think of any situation where such URLs are
> > useful.
> > 
> > File: URLs containing an explicit host name, on the other hand, are
> > potentially
> > useful and passed on to a helper program.  The helper program would be
> > free to
> > choose the access method, e.g. using NFS or SMB to mount the remote file
> > system mapping the path name appropriately or mapping the file: URL to
> > an appropriate HTTP, FTP or TFTP action to retrieve the content of the
> > file.
> I don't agree. I think one of the premises of NFS is that the user
> shouldn't have to worry about where a file is actually stored.

Yes but the text of RFC 1738 says "The file URL scheme is unusual in that
it does not specify an Internet protocol or access method for such files"

Balsa cannot therefore assume that NFS is the method used to retrieve the file
(nor can you enforce that assumption).  For example if TFTP is to be used,
both host name and path name are needed.  In any case, balsa does not interpret
the URL, the helper program does.  In the case of a file: URL helper program,
it is likely to be a shell script  which is free to do whatever it likes.  So
if you know that NFS is in use the helper can just open the file referenced by
the path protion of the URL.  As an extra check the mount point could be
against the host name.

Remember, internet messaging has different security implications to file

Brian Stafford

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]