618090 - suggestion for UNC-Path access restriction

Status: UNCONFIRMED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[peter.sonntag]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

A hyperlink to something like this: "file://servername/etc." is reduced to "file:///etc.". I am aware that this might occur due to the strict exclusion of UNC-path accesses, but I would like to suggest to add something like a defined servernames and/or ip-adresses collection, that can be allowed to be accessed. Once your server/client network is within a windows domain, there shouldn't be that much of a risk.

Reproducible: Always

Actual Results:  
file://etc.

Expected Results:  
file:///etc.

At least show the right link and not erase the servername!

Comment 1

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

You have just the wrong syntax.
local directory : file:///directory
UNC path: file://///server/directory

Note: You can only link to file:// URLs if the originating document with the link is also loaded via file:// protocol

Comment 2

[peter.sonntag]

No, this is not what I meant. The servername is erased from the url. I noticed the same bug even in the comment. When the source code is like this (hopefully the comments may contain the word "servername", if not, it is right after file://): 
href="file://servername/etc" it will be followed as href="file:///etc". Why is that? It would be nice to at least keep the servername in the url.
The suggestion was to include a new feature in firefox, where you should be able to define a local network that may be accessed via file://, maybe with a mandatory domain environment. 
Thx for looking into it.

Comment 3

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

>he servername is erased from the url
>Why is that?
Because your file URL is invalid and with removing of the servername it's a valid URL.

>The suggestion was to include a new feature in firefox, where you should be
>able to define a local network that may be accessed via file://, maybe with a
>mandatory domain environment. 

What would be the benefit from that ?

Comment 4

[peter.sonntag]

>Because your file URL is invalid and with removing of the servername it's a
>valid URL.

ok, got it. It's a little bit too bad that the wrong URL is interpreted that way, but I understand.

>What would be the benefit from that ?

it would be a workaround when a company would want to use ms search server 2010 within a local network domain and yet wants (also) to use ff. But the above issue might still be a problem, since the search server works with URLs like this: ("file://servername/directory") and additionally seems to interprete the ACLs. I guess it's not really a solution. Thanks anyway for answering and best regards.