[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 01:21:01 +0300
From: Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: RAR early reject
True.
If I understand correctly, it should never go beyond 63 as no rar archiver
I've seen allows it. I think a similar check can be done for maxmb (winrar
imposes a limit of 128MB). This helps. But we definitely need some early
reject in the LZ case.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:59 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2012 09:05 AM, Milen Rangelov wrote:
> > I am reaching the same conclusion. I was able to do another check for the
> > PPM part, order should never be more than 63 (as this is the archiver
> > limit) and this is safe I think.
>
> Do you mean max_order in ppm_decode_init() right after reading it from
> rar_get_char()? Or did you test somewhere else?
>
> I also found from original unpack.cpp that filter_pos in add_vm_code()
> should never be > 1024 but I haven't ever seen it happen. Maybe I'll
> drop that test again even though it's there in the original code (for
> some reason it was not in clamav's code). BTW I only recently realized
> how easy it is to compare the original .cpp code with clamav's code.
> They really just ported it. The original code has more comments.
>
> We are currently rejecting 93% of the data on average, compared to
> reading all of the data each time. That may sound good, but for a 500 MB
> file we still need to decrypt and read 3.6 MB on average.
>
> magnum
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
