On 29/11/2016 18:18, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2016-11-29 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>> On 29/11/2016 14:40, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> On 11/29/16 8:14 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Hi folks,
>>>
while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I
Am 2016-11-29 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 29/11/2016 14:40, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Michael,
On 11/29/16 8:14 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Hi folks,
while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I
have noticed that Tomcat 8.5 does not validate the set status
code, ev
Am 2016-11-29 um 15:40 schrieb Christopher Schultz:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Michael,
On 11/29/16 8:14 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Hi folks,
while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I
have noticed that Tomcat 8.5 does not validate the set status
co
On 29/11/2016 14:40, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Michael,
>
> On 11/29/16 8:14 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>
>> while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I
>> have noticed that Tomcat 8.5 does not validate the set status
>> code, everything ist possible, e.g., -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Michael,
On 11/29/16 8:14 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I
> have noticed that Tomcat 8.5 does not validate the set status
> code, everything ist possible, e.g., -99 or 100
Hi folks,
while investigating another possible patch for the RewriteValve, I have
noticed that Tomcat 8.5 does not validate the set status code,
everything ist possible, e.g., -99 or 1000. Scanning the code I haven't
found any validation or such upto
org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11OutputBuffe
