Bug #1723: Google Adsense cookie crashes lighttpd - Lighttpd - lighty labs

Actions

Copy link

Bug #1723

closed

Google Adsense cookie crashes lighttpd

Added by Anonymous over 16 years ago. Updated over 8 years ago.

Status:

Obsolete

Priority:

Normal

Category:

core

Target version:

1.5.0

ASK QUESTIONS IN Forums:

Description

It seems that Google Adwords cookie (utmz) when containing polish characters like (?, ?, ?) crashes lighttpd with this error:


http_req.c.284: (trace) parsing failed at token ( [1]), header: GET /grupy/kategoria/9/ciaza/?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ciaza_forum_twoja_pierwsza_ciaza&gclid=CJrZsY6SxJQCFQuGugodAUXTFA


HTTP/1.0
Host: www.benc.pl
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
Accept: application/x-shockwave-flash,text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif;q=0.2,text/css,*/*;q=0.1
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Referer: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=ci%C4%85%C5%BCa+forum&btnG=Szukaj&lr=
Cookie: PHPSESSID=c7e186b9c4d9067f4bf743b6db2f4382; __utma=92535822.3018116742044647000.1216201610.1216201610.1216201610.1; __utmb=92535822.1.10.1216201610; __utmc=92535822; __utmz=92535822.1216201610.1.1.utmcsr=adwords|utmgclid=CJPsgoWQxJQCFQoNZwod-3tTGQ|utmccn=ciaza_forum_twoja_pierwsza_ciaza|utmcmd=cpc|utmctr=ci|a%20forum
Via: 1.1 www.sciaga.pl:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE20)
X-Forwarded-For: 83.9.189.147
Cache-Control: max-age=259200
Connection: keep-alive

This is why: utmctr=ci|a%20forum

This is google's fault because they should escape the string inside val utmcrt so it would look like this (ci%C4%85%C5%BCa+forum) - they do this everywhere exept adwords.

Also this cookie works in apache web server (doesn't crash it) :)

I will write to google about this matter.

-- pawel

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Anonymous over 16 years ago

It's Google Adwords cookie, not Adsense

Actions

Copy link

Updated by stbuehler almost 13 years ago

Description updated (diff)
Assignee deleted (~~jan~~)
Priority changed from High to Normal
Missing in 1.5.x set to No

%C4%85%C5%BC are all characters that are allowed, so they shouldn't be a problem. we had other reports of them being control chars (like %05), which we will never allow.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by usego almost 13 years ago

stbuehler wrote:

%C4%85%C5%BC are all characters that are allowed, so they shouldn't be a problem. we had other reports of them being control chars (like %05), which we will never allow.

What's the purpose to make such strict checks against de-facto obsolete RFC? In real world google determines what is standard, not RFC. This is really huge issue as lost adword clicks due to 400 = lost real money. This issue prevents using unpatched lighttpd on production.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by stbuehler almost 13 years ago

No, i do NOT change code just to workaround google bugs. Oh, and while we are at it: I don't like adwords.

if you think google practice sets the standards, then go use their software, but don't complain here.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by sergey.b almost 13 years ago

stbuehler wrote:

%C4%85%C5%BC are all characters that are allowed, so they shouldn't be a problem. we had other reports of them being control chars (like %05), which we will never allow.

No, he stated that he got "utmctr=ci|a%20forum". I think it's the same problem as:
http://redmine.lighttpd.net/issues/2378

Actions

Copy link

Updated by usego almost 13 years ago

stbuehler wrote:

No, i do NOT change code just to workaround google bugs. Oh, and while we are at it: I don't like adwords.
if you think google practice sets the standards, then go use their software, but don't complain here.

I was under impression that lighttpd is targeted to e-commerce sites too where Adwords are de-facto way of doing business. Sorry, I was wrong.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by icy almost 13 years ago

Sergey, usego: have you tried contacting Google so they fix the cookies in Adwords? Because this is where the bug really is.

And regarding the last snarky remark: yes you were indeed wrong. Lighty is not targeted to E-Commerce sites. Lighty is not targeted to any specific kind of site in any way. Lighty is targeted for users who need a lightweight and fast webserver. Google does not determine what the standard is. The HTTP RFC is not de-facto obsolete.

Actions

Copy link