Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MFT Library Fork #213

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

reece394
Copy link
Contributor

@reece394 reece394 commented Jan 9, 2025

As we experienced in #212 there were several issues discovered with the mft library being used. It turns out a lot of the issues we have been experiencing have already been fixed by others. As a result I forked the library over to here with cherry picked commits from omerbenamram/mft#120, omerbenamram/mft#119 and hodf-cye/mft@e5c8b66 as well as bumping up some of the rust dependencies. I haven't bumped them all yet due to some having significant changes that need testing. The intention for this is for either the cloning of the repo I have started or me transferring it over and then we can change it to the WithSecureLabs repos instead of being external.

One issue that will need fixed is when dumping to JSON it outputs as one / instead of // and I believe JSON wants them escaped. CSV is fine however.

Managed to bump up the dependencies to latest which should help with maintainability going forward. I also fixed the benchmark file too that didn't account for changes in the code.
When running tests on the library you should run:
cargo test -- --skip "readme_sect_library_usage_line_33" as skeptic isn't checking the readme properly (not a deal breaker)

Bitflags was the most troublesome due to them changing the way they serialised the output. I modified this code to use fmt:Display to restore the prior output however one output difference if you use the mft_dump binary the library outputs using the json output format the IndexRootFlags appear to output both SMALL_INDEX and LARGE_INDEX instead of previously just outputting LARGE_INDEX. I am not sure if this is a bug yet but it would be good to figure that one out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant