|
Home About Us A-Z Index Search * Contact Us Register Login Press ShopThe Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System |
Problem Report 2536 Details
Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges
This page provides all information on Problem Report 2536.
Report 2536 Actions
Problem Report Number 2536 Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem State Resolved Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD) Problem Resolution ID TSD.X.1311 Raised 2007-09-16 02:11 Updated 2007-09-22 01:33 Published 2007-09-22 01:33 Product Standard LDAP Certified Certification Program The Open Brand certification program Test Suite VSLDAP version 2.3-GA Test Identification syntaxes2_4_3_10, syntaxes2_4_3_11, syntaxes2_4_3_12, VSLDIF.ldif Location in Spec IETF RFC 2798, 2.6. JPEG Photograph Problem Summary Binary values for attribute jpegPhoto don't adhere to syntax
1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28 (JFIF)Problem Text The test data (LDIF) and some test cases use the attribute type
jpegPhoto from inetOrgPerson, as described in RFC 2798. According to
this RFC, the attribute should store an image in JPEG File Interchange
Format (JFIF), syntax OID is 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28
Some data provided with the test suite (VSLDAP.ldif) does not adhere to
JFIF. The entry with DN
cn=David Rosengarten, ou=Client1, ou=Vendor1, ou=Modify, o=IMC, c=US
and the copies for the different vendors and client have the following
value:
jpegPhoto:: BAVBQkNERQ==
which is binary { 04, 05, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 }.
This value is not a valid JFIF data set. JFIF specifies that a jpeg
image starts with the following bytes :
0xFF 0xD8 (SOI, Start Of Image)
0xFF 0xE0 (App0)
0xNN 0xNN (Header length)
"JFIF\0" (JFIF string with an ending \0)
some other bytes which are related to the image.
If an LDAP server checks the attribute value according to syntax
1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28, it should therefore refuse the data
provided in the LDIF (which represents something like 0x04 0x05 "ABCD").
But if the server under tests refuses the data during import, the test
case syntaxes2_4_3_11 from the BASE profile fails (it expects the data
provided in the LDIF). Furthermore test cases syntaxes2_4_3_10 and
syntaxes2_4_3_12 will fail as well, because they try to add an entry
with the same illegal JPEG image, or try to modify one in that way.
We therefore suggest to use valid values both within the test data
(VSLDAP.ldif) and the three relevant test cases. A simple workaraound
would be to use binary data with a valid JFIF header like
jpegPhoto:: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgAJ
Even better would be to use a small yet valid JPEG image, for instance
one which is 1x1 pixel small.
jpegPhoto::
/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEASABIAAD/4QAWRXhpZgAATU0AKgAAAAgAAAAAAAD//gAXQ
3JlYXRlZCB3aXRoIFRoZSBHSU1Q/9sAQwAQCwwODAoQDg0OEhEQExgoGhgWFhgxIyUdKDozPTw5M
zg3QEhcTkBEV0U3OFBtUVdfYmdoZz5NcXlwZHhcZWdj/9sAQwEREhIYFRgvGhovY0I4QmNjY2NjY
2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY2Nj/8AAEQgAAQABAwEiA
AIRAQMRAf/EABUAAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF/8QAFBABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/EABUBA
QEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUG/8QAFBEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8AigC14
Test Output 110|27 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_10 12:35:18|Build Start,
scenario ref 10-0
130|27 0 12:35:19|Build End, scenario ref 10-0
10|28 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_10 12:35:19|TC Start, scenario
ref 10-0
15|28 3.4-lite 1|TCM Start
400|28 1 1 12:35:19|IC Start
200|28 1 12:35:19|TP Start
520|28 1 00007256 1 1|Bind successful
520|28 1 00007256 1 2|WARNING: add raised resultCode: 21
220|28 1 2 12:35:19|UNRESOLVED
410|28 1 1 12:35:19|IC End
80|28 0 12:35:20|TC End, scenario ref 10-0
300|29 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_10 12:35:20|Clean Start,
scenario ref 10-0
320|29 0 12:35:21|Clean End, scenario ref 10-0
110|30 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_11 12:35:21|Build Start,
scenario ref 11-0
130|30 0 12:35:22|Build End, scenario ref 11-0
10|31 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_11 12:35:22|TC Start, scenario
ref 11-0
15|31 3.4-lite 1|TCM Start
400|31 1 1 12:35:22|IC Start
200|31 1 12:35:22|TP Start
520|31 1 00007273 1 1|compare result: resultCode: 54
220|31 1 1 12:35:22|FAIL
410|31 1 1 12:35:22|IC End
80|31 0 12:35:23|TC End, scenario ref 11-0
300|32 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_11 12:35:23|Clean Start,
scenario ref 11-0
320|32 0 12:35:24|Clean End, scenario ref 11-0
110|33 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_12 12:35:24|Build Start,
scenario ref 12-0
130|33 0 12:35:25|Build End, scenario ref 12-0
10|34 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_12 12:35:25|TC Start, scenario
ref 12-0
15|34 3.4-lite 1|TCM Start
400|34 1 1 12:35:25|IC Start
200|34 1 12:35:25|TP Start
520|34 1 00007290 1 1|Bind successful
520|34 1 00007290 1 2|WARNING: modify resultCode: 21
220|34 1 2 12:35:25|UNRESOLVED
410|34 1 1 12:35:25|IC End
80|34 0 12:35:26|TC End, scenario ref 12-0
300|35 /ts/rfc2252/syntaxes/syntaxes2_4_3_12 12:35:26|Clean Start,
scenario ref 12-0
320|35 0 12:35:27|Clean End, scenario ref 12-0Review Information
Review Type TSMA Review Start Date 2007-09-16 02:11 Last Updated 2007-09-21 17:35 Completed 2007-09-21 17:35 Status Complete Review Recommendation Test Suite Deficiency (TSD) Review Response We agree that it is a fault in the test suite. The test code and
VSLDAP.ldif should be changed in line with what suggested in the PR.
Review Type SA Review Start Date 2007-09-21 16:35 Last Updated 2007-09-22 01:15 Completed 2007-09-22 01:15 Status Complete Review Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD) Review Conclusion This PR represents an agreed test suite deficiency
Problem Reporting System Options:
- View Report 2536
- List All PRs
- Search Reports
- Email the System Administrator
- View the The Open Brand Interpretations Database User Manual
Contact the Certification Authority