2009.04.26 17:22 "[Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Simon Berger
-
2009.04.29 14:28 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Toby Thain
-
2009.04.30 07:41 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Albert Cahalan
-
2009.04.30 13:58 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Toby Thain
- 2009.04.30 19:12 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Albert Cahalan
-
2009.04.30 13:58 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Toby Thain
-
2009.04.30 07:41 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Albert Cahalan
- 2009.04.29 18:07 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Simon Berger
- 2009.05.05 19:13 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Albert Cahalan
2009.05.01 14:21 "Re: [Tiff] Packbits worst case encoded length", by Toby Thain
On 1-May-09, at 2:34 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Toby Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
My approach to finding bugs in a file format parser is to test. And test more. Fuzz testing with random input I find is revealing. Memory protection hacks, while a nice extra safety net, and definitely valuable in an operating system, are not a substitute for that.
That's an excellent idea, but you might not catch everything.
Nor will guard pages.
Is every file-reading library on the system supposed to re-implement this technique??
--Toby