Bug 66816 - Mozilla interprets /etc/mailcap incorrectly
Mozilla interprets /etc/mailcap incorrectly
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: mozilla (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Christopher Blizzard
Ben Levenson
: Security
Depends On:
Blocks: 67218 79579
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2002-06-17 07:09 EDT by Göran Uddeborg
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:43 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-04-23 08:46:00 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Göran Uddeborg 2002-06-17 07:09:30 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020528

Description of problem:
When using a entry from /etc/mailcap, Mozilla apparently only uses the command
name, and ignores the rest of the command line.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):0.9.9-13

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Add an entry "image/x-xwindowdump; xwud -in %s" in /etc/mailcap
  assuming no other configuration for this content-type.
2.Point mozilla to a file with an .xwd suffix.

Actual Results:  Mozilla first asks if it should use xwud to display this file.
 If accepted, another window is quickly flashed, and then gone.

Expected Results:  A new xwud window with the contents of the xwd file.

Additional info:

Apparently, Mozilla invokes "xwud <file>" omitting the "-in" in the mailcap entry.

I hesitated a bit before categorising this as a security bug.  It could be a
security issue if mailcap consists an entry like "gv -safer %s", where the
mozilla behaviour would effectively remove the -safer flag.  In the end I
decided to call it a security issue, reasoning it is easy to downgrade it if
Comment 1 Christopher Blizzard 2002-08-29 18:45:49 EDT
Is this still a problem in 1.0.1?
Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 2002-08-30 18:31:24 EDT
Yes, I still see this with mozilla 1.0.1-10.

(Is it something I should report upstream maybe?)
Comment 3 Göran Uddeborg 2002-09-04 17:09:56 EDT
I checked upstream.  Not surprisingly, it was already reported there.

Comment 4 Mark J. Cox 2003-04-23 08:46:00 EDT
This is being fixed (eventually) upstream so will mark this closed.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.