ANOTHER bug in the File Save dialog

Discussion of bugs in Mozilla Firefox
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

DeckMan wrote:This works in Thunderbird 1.0.2 as well :)


I assume you mean the hex editing?

I want to know if I get all of the other security updates if I change that bit -- or is it just the same as runing 1.0 -- does changing the bit remove all the security improvements or just the regression?

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
DeckMan
Posts: 14
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 1:46 pm

Post by DeckMan »

i assume that changing that one byte should only get Bug 271732 back, instead of Bug 283730.

however, i didn't look at the source code, so i can only guess.
JeanMarc31
Posts: 1
Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:03 am
Location: Toulouse, France

Re: Patch for saving over links problem

Post by JeanMarc31 »

derwersei wrote:
JakeMont wrote:I have a solution … a complete hack. You can manually patch the gkwidget.dll file. Changing 1 byte (the flag that tells windows to behave this way) in this file fixes the problem.

DISCALAIMER: I am an experienced programmer, and I believe this to be safe, and it worked for me … but I am making no guarantees of what this will do to your computer at all. PROCEEDAT YOUR OWN RISK.

I am running Mozilla 1.7.6 (The file may or may not be the same for other applications.)

The file gkwidget.dll I have is 120,144 bytes and was created on March 19, 2005, 8:58:00 AM.
It is in “C:\Program Files\Common Files\mozilla.org\GRE\1.7.6_2005031907\components” on my computer … but could be elsewhere on yours.

Close all mozilla applications, and BACKUP THE FILE (gkwidget.dll).

In gkwidget.dll at file offset: 0x7C82 (31874 in decimal) there should be the bytes: 10 00 8D 85. Using a hex file editor, change the first byte to 00 so that the new sequence reads 00 00 8D 85, and save the file.

For me this solves the problem.

Again, I make no guarantees.

Good Luck.


Thanks a lot for your effort!

Since I'm using fx (v1.0.2) and there is no gkwidget.dll, i tried that method with firefox.exe (6,627,434 bytes).
It contains the same sequence twice, and it works with the second one at 0x11164E (change 10 to 00).

That's great because now I can finally use my favourite folder navigation method again ^^





Great Job JakeMont !
Where or how the hell did you find that ?
The fix for version 1.0.3 is at byte 111ead :
change 10 00 8D 85 to 00 00 8D 85
The link bug is fixed. I am not yet able to tell if there are side effects ... Let's hope not.
Boyakasha!
JakeMont
Posts: 7
Joined: April 14th, 2005, 12:26 pm

Post by JakeMont »

The fix targets only this one issue, and should not affect any other security fixes in application.

In answer to user derwerse - I am a professional programmer who was also bugged by this really annoying bug. With my knowledge of windows programming, I knew that there was a specific flag (code) one sends to the standard windows file save dialog to get it to behave exactly this way. I also assumed that certain other standard flags were being set at the same time. Armed with this information, I searched for assembly that would load this magic number (00 80 10 00 in the file which translates into a flag of 0x00108000 due to byte order on these machines). The real trouble was figuring out which module was responsible ... Mozilla is spread among many dlls. Once these locations were found, I used standard assembly debugging to put break points on them, and simply checked to see which was getting called when I opened a save dialog.

By The By ... the actual sequence you should be looking for in the files is 4D 80 00 80 10 00 8D 85

As I said before ... I can not guarantee anything (legally too risky). That said, the change only modifies a flag sent to the standard windows open dialog. If this fixes the problem for you, then I don't see how it could effect any other aspect of the application.

Lets hope they have an official fix soon.
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

awesome response JakeMont

(and YES! to your final statment)

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
tiku
Posts: 12
Joined: March 6th, 2005, 12:13 pm
Location: Vaasa, Finland

Post by tiku »

And now I too have an 1.0.3 with working shortcut handling in SaveAs-dgbox. THANKS GUYS!

\:D/
User avatar
Feuerfuchs_0815
Posts: 474
Joined: April 22nd, 2005, 1:48 am
Location: Germany

Post by Feuerfuchs_0815 »

Well, since it appears to be fixed by now, it's no longer a problem. But actually to me that never was a problem. I never tried to pick a link as a download location. Since a "link" is still a file (ok, it's pointing to another file or maybe directory). But it would have been nothing bot logical for me that the file I selected as a download target (be it a link, jpg, doc, exe or whatever else) maybe overwritten...
Isn't / wasn't that just logical?

Now, when I point a download to a link file will it overwrite the link file or the file that's being linked to?

It appears somewhat strange to me since I use "standard" download directories like "temp" or "download" or similar... I would never have thought of using links...

But obviosly (as this posting shows) a lot of people use links...
What's the advantage of doing so?
Just wondering...
JakeMont
Posts: 7
Joined: April 14th, 2005, 12:26 pm

Misunderstood

Post by JakeMont »

Feuerfuchs_0815 wrote:Now, when I point a download to a link file will it overwrite the link file or the file that's being linked to?

But obviosly (as this posting shows) a lot of people use links...
What's the advantage of doing so?
Just wondering...


You misunderstood the problem, people use links to navigate quickly from one part of the file system to another within the file Save dialog. (I am talking Windows OS here). For example, some stuff that I download, I want on my Desktop, but other stuff goes into a folder named C:\Backups\Archive\Applications. It is a pain to have to navigate to that address every time, so I put a link to it on my desktop. That way when the file Save dialog comes up, and I am at the Desktop, I simply double click on the link, and I am now in my alternate save location. So it is not that we want to save to a link, but rather we want to be able to navigate using links within the file Save dialog.

Hope this was clear.
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

Feuerfuchs_0815 wrote:What's the advantage of doing so?


I'm sure there are many advantages, but for me I work on many business, school, and personal projects on my computer. I have all the files under an organized folder structure, with most of my files 5-6 folders deep. Browsing all the way through the tree to my (currently) most used locations is a waste of time. Same goes for the folders I often download to -- they are buried, so I create shortcuts to them on the desktop, and when I go to download something (audio, video, education related, business related, etc.) I can jump right to the right place in the folder structure, and save it.

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

so as to not add to my already offensive amount of bugspam on the bug, I am responding here:
(In reply to comment #86)
> (In reply to comment #83)
> > On second though, my answer of "I did." is not complete enough.
>
> ... you didn't notice Ere's comment, even when you
> had a question about "including Ere's comments" which should have prompted you
> to look for them.

my response (and all future ones) in the mozillazine thread


I missed one person's first name while getting at the content of the discussion -- this is not evidence of "not reading". The fact that it was lower case obviously added to the confusion. (you quoted it as being Uppercase, when in fact comment 74 said "including ere's comments.") "ere's" could have meant "everyone's" for all I knew. and searching the whole page for "ere" didn't do me much good because it's in plenty of words on the page, and eventually I gave up (apparently before the 27th hit on the page).

Your other points are valid (and your opinions are just that: opinions). I admit I am frustrated (while at the same time trying to do anything I can to help) and I could have worded my questions even better than I did.

I am still unclear when this problem will be fixed in a version I can download and install from mozilla.org
I am happy to learn more about how posting patches works -- it is good to know the protocol so that it won't confuse me anymore.

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
Zebrafish
Posts: 3
Joined: May 1st, 2005, 12:52 pm

Post by Zebrafish »

A huge thanks to everyone in here for the hex edit info!
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

JakeMont -- I love your fix except for the fact that if I use it I'll be less annoyed with the bug, which may make me less vocal about fixing it. Unintended consequences. :)

JakeMont wrote:By The By ... the actual sequence you should be looking for in the files is 4D 80 00 80 10 00 8D 85

and changed to 4D 80 00 80 00 00 8D 85 (right?)

JakeMont wrote:Lets hope they have an official fix soon.
yes, lets!


I have a question -- in order to make my life easier -- after I have done this with one "Firefox.exe" I can just copy that file and drop it on other 1.0.3 installations, right?

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
JakeMont
Posts: 7
Joined: April 14th, 2005, 12:26 pm

Post by JakeMont »

zachariah wrote:I have a question -- in order to make my life easier -- after I have done this with one "Firefox.exe" I can just copy that file and drop it on other 1.0.3 installations, right?


After making sure that they are exactally the same file (check the version on both, at least) I don't see why not.
User avatar
zachariah
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post by zachariah »

:cool:

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!
fiag
Posts: 2
Joined: December 28th, 2004, 6:12 pm

Post by fiag »

zerofoks wrote:This bug is very irritating. Voted!
Me too;
Post Reply