# Re: EOF detection

From: Nick Lamb (njl98r@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue May 08 2001 - 10:31:10 PDT

- Next message: Henning Meier-Geinitz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Previous message: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - In reply to: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Next in thread: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Next in thread: Henning Meier-Geinitz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Reply: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

  On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Marian Eichholz wrote:
  > I did't look into the new scanning code, but 0.74 had in fact a
  > vulnerability (buffer overrun), if the backend offers actually more data
  > than was precalculated by the front end.
  >
  > This is/was really a bug in the front end Xsane, because the parameters
  > to sane_read (aount of data requestet) don't mention the coming end of
  > the buffer (always requesting 64K/8K).

  I'm having trouble understanding this, can you give a concrete example,
  showing the SANE API calls made by Xsane, the response from the backend
  and where this leads to an overrun?

  Nick.

      --
      Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
      To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

  - Next message: Henning Meier-Geinitz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Previous message: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - In reply to: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Next in thread: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Next in thread: Henning Meier-Geinitz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Reply: Marian Eichholz: "Re: EOF detection"
  - Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

  This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 08 2001 - 10:20:41 PDT