https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163384

Michael Stahl (allotropia) <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
           See Also|                            |https://bugs.documentfounda
                   |                            |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16
                   |                            |2944
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #11 from Michael Stahl (allotropia) <[email protected]> 
---
apparently bug 162944 was also about Apache POI, let's see...

so if i look here:

00000160: 0144 312c e343 0e31 7cef e937 504b 0708  .D1,.C.1|..7PK..
00000170: 912c 28bc 3b01 0000 0000 0000 1d04 0000  .,(.;...........
00000180: 0000 0000 504b 0304 2d00 0800 0800 0000  ....PK..-.......

at 016C the data descriptor signature for the zip entry, at 0184 the signature
of the local file header of the next zip entry...

0170-0173 CRC
0174-017B 64-bit size, LE: 13b
017C-0183 64-bit size, LE: 41d

looks like a Zip64 DD?

then we have the local file header:

00000000: 504b 0304 2d00 0800 0800 0000 0000 0000  PK..-...........
00000010: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1300 0000 5b43  ..............[C

the extra field length at 001C-001D is 0 - so there is no Zip64 extra field,
and no indication that this is a Zip64 entry.

so the problem is the same as bug 162944.

IMHO if there is no Zip64 entry field, a Zip consumer cannot be required to
"guess" how long the data descriptor is; you either provide a Zip64 extra field
and then the sizes are 64-bit, or you don't and then the sizes are 32-bit.

also, see the Apache commons-compress code i found and pasted in
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162944#c7 ... it's unclear
to me how such files can even be created.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 162944 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to