After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 134193 - Probably shouldn't say "Download the Unsafe file" in download dialog
Probably shouldn't say "Download the Unsafe file" in download dialog
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 170493
Product: epiphany
Classification: Core
Component: Downloads
unspecified
Other Linux
: High normal
: ---
Assigned To: Epiphany Maintainers
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-02-12 09:49 UTC by Mikael Hallendal
Modified: 2005-11-28 00:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Mikael Hallendal 2004-02-12 09:49:14 UTC
When clicking a tarball the dialog tells me it's an unsafe file. Might be a
good idea to change this to unhandled or something similar. It's not an
unsafe file and telling the user that all files are unsafe will probably
just make him ignore the warning all together.
Comment 1 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-12 10:01:32 UTC
Would be possible to give me the url of the file ? It's prolly a mime 
type that is not in the freedesktop db.
Comment 2 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-12 10:24:19 UTC
Oh if you cant give the url I think wget shows the mime type when 
downloading ...
Comment 3 Mikael Hallendal 2004-02-12 10:45:38 UTC
Ah, it might just be a local problem. It's any tar.gz or tar.bz2 file.
I'll look into my mime-database, it might be screwed up from running
from CVS for 7 months without reinstallation. I should really do a
full rebuild and whipe my settings.
Comment 4 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-12 12:04:45 UTC
Prolly not local, we have a script to keep in sync ephy safe/unsafe
list with freedesktop.
Can you verify if
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/0.8/firefox-0.8-i686-linux-gtk2+xft.tar.gz
works correctly for you ? It does for me.
Comment 5 Dan Winship 2004-02-12 19:14:35 UTC
"application/octet-stream" is listed as unsafe. It could be
because of that.

I have to agree that saying files are "unsafe" is a bad idea,
especially with such a large list of "unsafe" types. (I was just
told that an ISO image could damage my documents or invade my
privacy... I'd like to see it try.)

As Mikael said, the evidence from Windows seems to be that if you
warn the user about unsafe files enough, they just stop paying
attention. And Linux isn't Windows anyway. The main types of problem
file on Windows are (a) Office files with evil macros (which are
listed as "safe" in epiphany's list), (b) VBscript (which isn't
listed as safe or unsafe, but wouldn't affect us anyway), and
(c) executables, which are unsafe on Windows because it moronically
offers to run random files you downloaded off the net, which no
Linux app that I am aware of does. So this code seems to trying to
protect users from security problems that don't really exist.

At any rate, it seems like if you're going to keep this warning,
you should move all of the compression and archive types (gzip,
bzip, tar, etc) to the "unsafe" list, since otherwise hax0rs will
be able to trick unsuspecting users into downloading dangerous
Nintendo 64 ROMs, TeX fonts, and Quicken data files by gzipping
them first. ;-)
Comment 6 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-12 23:28:22 UTC
The list certainly need tweaking, I'm not sure we can get rid of it
completely though. There are for example scripts that would we
automatically executed, if I remember correctly.
Comment 7 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-12 23:35:03 UTC
I also need to check what we do for unknown types. Since we dont
execute them anyway, the unsafe dialog should not be showed (I'm
convinced Mikael case is actually this one)
Comment 8 Mikael Hallendal 2004-02-12 23:49:22 UTC
Marco: The file you pointed to works fine in my epiphany. Might be the
returned type the server said that caused the problem.

Btw, what do you mean that scripts gets called automatically? That's
sounds way evil and imho should never happen, I think it's safe to
require that you download a script and then manually have to run it.
Comment 9 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-13 13:52:07 UTC
>what do you mean that scripts gets called automatically?

For example java bytecode is associated to java executable, windows
executable are associated to wine. So open it with the associated
application would execute them in these cases ...
Comment 10 Dan Winship 2004-02-13 14:26:47 UTC
If that's true, this really needs to be dealt with at the gnome-vfs
level (assuming that's where those mappings are). Otherwise other
apps that use the gnome-vfs mime db will have security problems.
(Eg, if you get mailed a windows virus, evolution would offer to
open it for you in Wine???)
Comment 11 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-13 14:53:05 UTC
See
http://cvs.gnome.org/bonsai/cvsblame.cgi?file=gnome-mime-data/gnome-vfs.keys.in&rev=&root=/cvs/gnome

In general I agree (though because of autodownloads the problem is 
much more critical in epiphany). I guess they was added so that you
could run windows/java executable from nautilus but they certainly
introduce problems. If they need to stay, there should be a way for
the applications to make a distinction between normal handlers and
handlers that run executable code.
Comment 12 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-13 16:57:47 UTC
This should be a lot saner in cvs. Leaving it open since we need to
have something that works system wide at some point.
Comment 13 Dan Winship 2004-02-13 18:30:11 UTC
And just to confirm, after upgrading to the latest gnome-vfs
and shared-mime-info, evolution does offer to open windows viruses
in Wine. Sweet!
Comment 14 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2004-02-18 19:47:59 UTC
Oh if you see this again with cvs please report the url.
Comment 15 Christian Persch 2004-10-13 10:52:15 UTC
Mass reassigning of Epiphany bugs to epiphany-maint@b.g.o
Comment 16 Josh Lee 2005-08-13 19:39:22 UTC
I've had trouble with this too. Go to
http://www.thedailywtf.com/forums/26911/ShowPost.aspx and click on the
screenshot to download it.

Epiphany says the file is unsafe, even though it's *clearly* labelled as:
Content-Type: image/x-png
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="amazon-million.png"
...which look safe to me. ;)
Comment 17 Reinout van Schouwen 2005-10-16 20:50:18 UTC
Comment #16 actually looks like a different problem, with Content-Disposition:
attachment being abused. I assume image/x-png is already in the "safe" mimetypes
list? If not, it should probably be added. Otherwise, is there a reason to keep
this bug open?
Comment 18 Reinout van Schouwen 2005-11-28 00:15:53 UTC
Marking duplicate of 170493 since it has a bit more info.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 170493 ***