Bug #5981
closedsmtp: Long DATA line post boundary is capped at 4k Bytes
Added by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago. Updated almost 3 years ago.
Description
This can affect for example size and content of the logged file in case of multipart MIME.
SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago Actions #1
- Target version changed from 6.0.12 to 7.0.0-rc2
OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot almost 3 years ago Actions #2
- Subtask #5982 added
OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot almost 3 years ago Actions #3
- Label deleted (
Needs backport to 6.0)
SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago Actions #4
- Status changed from Assigned to Rejected
While trying to create a test to prove this issue, when I was successfully able to create the test, I noticed an anomaly event MIME_LONG_LINE. Upon investigating the code and then the RFC 2045 and 2822, I found that if we receive more than 998 bytes as a part of MIME excluding CRLF, we must ideally reject the line as the 998 character limit is due to limitations in many implementations which send, receive, or store Internet Message Format messages that simply cannot handle more than 998 characters on a line In fact, modern implementations are enforcing 78 Bytes long line.
Conclusion: Even in theory, if this happens, we have it handled well as it should be as per the RFCs. This issue is invalid and must be rejected.
Demonstrated by test https://github.com/OISF/suricata-verify/pull/1187
SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago Actions #5
- Status changed from Rejected to In Progress
Reopening because the anomaly doesn't mean the processing necessarily stops. Needs more testing.
SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago Actions #6
- Status changed from In Progress to In Review
PA Updated by Philippe Antoine almost 3 years ago Actions #7
Why is this urgent ?
I think https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/3487 solves this issue
SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj almost 3 years ago Actions #8
Philippe Antoine wrote in #note-7:
Why is this urgent ?
It was set to urgent bc we wanted to include it in the last release. Then, we decided to leave it to the future release.
I think https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/3487 solves this issue
oh. I also have an MR. I'll check your PR w the test.
VJ Updated by Victor Julien almost 3 years ago Actions #9
- Status changed from In Review to Resolved
VJ Updated by Victor Julien almost 3 years ago Actions #10
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
VJ Updated by Victor Julien almost 3 years ago Actions #11
- Private changed from Yes to No