Re: [reSIProcate] Parser validation issues
In general, the parser is not intended to enforce conformity. It is
required to parse all correct inputs, but is not required to reject
all incorrect inputs.
However, the integer overflow seems like it should be fixed.
david
On 5/8/06, Ofir Roval <Ofir.Roval@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
I came across 2 parsing issues that I would like to share:
1. When parsing NameAddr fields, the parser will always accept a header
containing only a STAR sign (*) as valid value. This is of course the
required behavior for Contact header but for headers like >From and To I
believe this violates the RFC syntax. Note: other syntax violations will
usually result with an exception.
2. When parsing an Interger field like Expires, an integer value greater
that MAX_INT will result in integer-overflow and the actual parsed int may
become a negative number.
These issues led me to raise the following question: to what extent is the
parser responsible for ensuring legal syntax ? what do you think ?
Ofir Roval - Kayote Networks
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel