url parameters on a non-script file (download)

This is a discussion on url parameters on a non-script file (download) within the Linux Web Servers forums, part of the Web Server and Related Forums category; Hello, I have a problem with urls like http://site.com/file.exe?fromhere I used the url of this ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Web Server and Related Forums > Linux Web Servers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2003
AlexZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default url parameters on a non-script file (download)

Hello,

I have a problem with urls like

http://site.com/file.exe?fromhere

I used the url of this style for years, with no problems.

Now, on a new server Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux)
I've got a problem with IE - it saves the file as file.exe?fromhere
and does not recognize it as an executable.

Can it be caused by some Apache misconfiguration?
BTW, Apache returns Content-Type: application/octet-stream

Thanks
Alex
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2003
Alan J. Flavell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: url parameters on a non-script file (download)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, AlexZ wrote:

> Now, on a new server Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux)


presumably specification-conforming...

> I've got a problem with IE


Nothing unusual there, then. It violates mandatory requirements of
Internet and WWW specifications, so problems are the "order of the
day".

> - it saves the file as file.exe?fromhere


Nice...

> and does not recognize it as an executable.


Even better. For once they seem have a right-side failure (whether
intentionally or by accident). Maybe they really _are_ finally taking
security seriously, instead of just telling their PR dept to say they
are...

> Can it be caused by some Apache misconfiguration?


Let's have a URL to demonstrate this behaviour?

> BTW, Apache returns Content-Type: application/octet-stream


Well, that certainly isn't an MS executable content-type. That says,
in effect, "this is an unstructured bag of bytes". A browser would be
behaving entirely correctly in declining to guess what that might be,
and putting the onus on the user to take responsiblity for deciding
what it's fit for.

More detail of the situation as I see it, at
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...tent-type.html

Of course, nothing becomes true merely by me saying it is so, but I do
try to support the various assertions by reference to authoritative
specifications.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0