+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63195
--- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #3)
> Perhaps a combination of something like
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/
> ddd340766f19443210537bc244ecd7ba13a7c692 applied to th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58072
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Note if this is still an issue then a performance issue should be raised
against the JRE.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57130
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56614
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60997
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57130
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Schultz ---
Coty: any reason to stop processing additional command-line arguments when
reading passwords from a file?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56402
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63195
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ---
Perhaps a combination of something like
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/ddd340766f19443210537bc244ecd7ba13a7c692
applied to the Request Info Servlet"? We should either add a new "S
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60997
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
I started looking at 2) since I think I saw the request somewhere else as well
in the past, but it was a bit messy (I tried using RequestFilterValve as well).
Instead I added a new feature to the rewrite
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
Bug ID: 68743
Summary: NIIM #1 Computer Training Institute Gorakhpur
Product: Tomcat 8
Version: 8.5.x-trunk
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68742
Bug ID: 68742
Summary: SingleSignOn session invalidation logic fallacy
results in 408 request timed out.
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.x
Hardware: PC
Status
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68721
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68721
Bug ID: 68721
Summary: WebappClassLoaderBase fails with duplicate class
definition
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: 10.1.18
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68089
--- Comment #13 from John Engebretson ---
This changed reached prod and improved performance. Low impact.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68546
--- Comment #4 from John Engebretson ---
This changed reached prod and had the (small) expected impact. Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
--- Comment #11 from John Engebretson ---
These changes reached prod and eliminated the respective profiles.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68720
Bug ID: 68720
Summary: Troubleshooting Tomcat: Addressing Compression Issues
with Firefox 'NS_ERROR_NET_PARTIAL_TRANSFER' Error
Product: Tomcat Connectors
Version: unspecified
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
JongPo.Kim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from JongPo.Kim
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68603
--- Comment #17 from Naresh ---
(In reply to Noah Adams from comment #15)
> I believe this bug is a duplicate of
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495 and I uploaded a test
> case there.
Happy to see that the issue
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68603
--- Comment #16 from Naresh ---
(In reply to Noah Adams from comment #15)
> I believe this bug is a duplicate of
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495 and I uploaded a test
> case there.
Yeah Noah Adams,
The issue is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68711
Elan Imperial 82 changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://www.elangroupprojec
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68711
Bug ID: 68711
Summary: Elan Imperial 82: Prime Commercial Spaces in Gurgaon -
Invest for Success
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: 10.1.18
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68631
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68631
--- Comment #5 from Suryanarayana Garlapati
---
Hi Mark,
We were busy in release work. This week will test on latest release and update
here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68634
--- Comment #4 from OKUYAMA Atsushi ---
Thank you for your reply. I'm currently considering your responses. Sincerely.
--- Comment #5 from OKUYAMA Atsushi ---
Thank you for your reply. I'm currently considering your responses. Sincerely
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68634
--- Comment #4 from OKUYAMA Atsushi ---
Thank you for your reply. I'm currently considering your responses. Sincerely.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68634
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68631
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
No response after 2+ weeks. This is heading towards WORKSFORME.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
That was my first thought but:
1. I didn't want correct behaviour of the FormAuthenticator to depend on
caching decisions in Request that could - in theory - change over time
2. I didn't cache query string
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #13 from Remy Maucherat ---
I was planning to do:
public String getQueryString() {
return coyoteRequest.queryString().toStringType();
}
Since the idea from the FormAuthenticator is to change the MessageBytes type
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #12 from Mark Thomas ---
Thanks for the test case. I am able recreate the issue now.
The root cause is a combination of this code in the FormAuthenticator:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/9.0.x/java/org/apache/catalina
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68696
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68696
Bug ID: 68696
Summary: Tomcat throws ClientAbortException:
java.io.IOException: Broken pipe even the client
request is complete successfully
Product: Tomcat 9
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #11 from Remy Maucherat ---
Ok so maybe there's still something with the query string then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #10 from Chuck Caldarale ---
I was able to reproduce the problem on 9.0.85, but not on 9.0.86 (nor on
11.0.0-M17). Looks like something fixed it recently, but there's nothing
obvious to me in the changelog for 9.0.86.
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #9 from Noah Adams ---
Before you ask, I just replicated this on a clean install of 9.0.85
RHEL 9 JDK 8
I only edited tomcat_users.xml to uncomment the admin user and change the
password
Note that to get the sample app to work
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68603
--- Comment #15 from Noah Adams ---
I believe this bug is a duplicate of
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495 and I uploaded a test case
there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Noah Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #7 from Noah Adams ---
Created attachment 39607
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39607=edit
Sample web application to reproduce bug
I am attaching a very simple web application that reliably reprodu
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68634
--- Comment #2 from Remy Maucherat ---
Ok, the ApplicationDispatcher forward does something different for a
ResponseFacade, so it can mess up your timing. Obviously if the response is
simply a ResponseFacade it gets suspended (pretending
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
--- Comment #2 from Gabor Bodo ---
Hi Remy,
Thank you for the quick reply! Just to be clear, we are only passing this
executor to a single connector, so it is used exclusively.
I think that the current behaviour is a bit inconsistent
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #6 from Noah Adams ---
Lol, I'll try to get you the test case tomorrow. I assure you that this is a
bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
I think it is possible to upgrade the implementations to ExecutorService and I
will do that. However, NIO2 needs its own exclusive pool so it is probably not
very useful to configure a custom one like
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Noah Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
Bug ID: 68692
Summary: Http11Nio2Protocol not using provided executor
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.83
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #10 from dub...@gmail.com ---
First off, what I'm asking for already exists in mod_jk via the JkEnvVar
directive. I just want the same thing for jk_isapi_plugin (the IIS equivalent
of mod_jk).
This request stemmed from a deep dive
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Schultz ---
Back to your original request...
Could you set HTTP headers (to proxy either using AJP or HTTP) and then have
your application pick those up using a Filter? Something like:
Client -- HTTP -->
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Schultz ---
I've proposed making arrangements for REMOTE_USER on the dev list. I realize
that's not quite what you are asking for, here, but I thought I'd mention it
since I really do think we as a community
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
dub...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #7 from dub...@gmail.com ---
Im stuck with IIS, hence the request for a mod to the isapi filter connector.
If I could use Apache, I would be able to use the JkEnvVar directive.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to dub357 from comment #5)
> How would things like REMOTE_USER or the client
> certificate get propagated to Tomcat? This is something your presentation
> fails to discuss and is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #5 from dub...@gmail.com ---
Again - I need something integrated w/ Tomcat and a true reverse proxy over
HTTP will never be that. How would things like REMOTE_USER or the client
certificate get propagated to Tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ---
The typical way to do this is:
1. Remove all inbound HTTP headers you want to set at the proxy
2. Set your specific HTTP headers at the proxy
3. Read your now-trusted HTTP headers from the request
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #3 from dub...@gmail.com ---
I'm not entirely sure, but the point here is that I dont want to use on HTTP
headers. The current ISAPI filter already passes on those. The problem is
that they can be spoofed by the client so I'm
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz ---
Does IIS have the ability to add request headers to proxied requests? For
example, if you were using client -> [HTTP] -> IIS -> [HTTP] -> Tomcat, would
you be able to set arbitrary
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
dub...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
--- Comment #1 from dub
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
Bug ID: 68677
Summary: no support for enviroment variables/request attributes
Product: Tomcat Connectors
Version: 1.2.49
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
*** Bug 68664 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Mustafa Bozdemir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mustafa.bozdemir@fisglobal
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Bug ID: 68664
Summary: CVE-2024-22029 Incorrect default permissions
vulnerability
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.86
Hardware: All
OS: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
Bug ID: 68663
Summary: CVE-2024-22029 Incorrect default permissions
vulnerability
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.86
Hardware: All
OS: All
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
1 - 100 of 46784 matches
Mail list logo