Status: Read
Received: from phillip.thumbsplus.com by phillip.thumbsplus.com (NTMail 3.02.11) with ESMTP id pcrews for <pcrews@cerious.com>; Fri, 30 May 1997 18:37:36 -0400
Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/970507) via ESMTP id PAA22338; Fri, 30 May 1997 15:31:51 -0700
	env-from (owner-tiff@sgi.engr.sgi.com)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) id MAA18677 for tiff-list; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:27:54 -0700
Received: from sgi.sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id MAA18659 for <tiff-relay@relay.engr.sgi.com>; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:27:52 -0700
Received: from tesla.netline.net (tesla.netline.net [204.117.219.2]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/970507) via ESMTP id MAA09814
	for <tiff@sgi.com>; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:27:51 -0700
	env-from (kinch@tesla.netline.net)
Received: (from kinch@localhost) by tesla.netline.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10336; Fri, 30 May 1997 15:14:11 -0400
Message-Id: <199705301914.PAA10336@tesla.netline.net>
Subject: Re: PackBits confusion
To: sam@relay.engr.SGI.COM
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:14:11 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: kinch@holonet.net, tiff@sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <199705301829.LAA15025@melange.engr.sgi.com> from "Sam Leffler" at May 30, 97 11:29:32 am
From: "Richard J. Kinch" <kinch@holonet.net>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1279      
Sender: owner-tiff@fddi-sgi.engr.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

> If you can demonstrate to me that this problem is widespread then perhaps
> we can add a flag to the library to control the handling of a -128 code
> and then add an option to tiffcp to use in converting files to a valid
> format.   Freel free to send me changes along this line...

I was worried that the problem was widespread.  It appears to come from
the bundled TIFF-editing software from my old Logitech hand scanner, and
a lot of my historical images contain it, and thus my paranoia.  If you
haven't heard much about it, it is probably just my "luck" that my stuff
is rotted through.

I'm not concerned about it for myself, but for others who might run into
it.  So if it isn't a common problem, it isn't much of a concern.

The tiffcp option is a nice idea.

I haven't studied the libtiff PackBits decoding thoroughly on this point:
does an image that misuses -128 for a repetition cause an error in libtiff
(like stray memory reference).  When I try to load such images in my
Windows 95 compilation, I get program faults.  The data byte that was
erroneously intended to be the repeated data winds up getting treated by
the (correct) libtiff as an opcode, and all bets are off.

So I wonder if libtiff PackBits decoding might not be "defensive" enough.

Richard Kinch
