Would this be a good time to setup unit testing for peepdf? :-)
Do you have a 'minimal' pdf for this by any chance?

Well, it's not 'minimal', but here is a real PDF that exhibits this issue:

http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/docs/BB-1-Overview.pdf

Sweet! I'll take it.

Merged and added a unit test for it ;-) Interestingly enough getting 21% code coverage with just a single unit test, not bad.

And last but not least, bumped to 0.3.3.

Thanks for your work in packaging it :)

For the unit test, perhaps it would be better to use manualAnalysis=True? Unless you intentionally want to kick off automatic JS emulation.

I guess that works, too. I'm just wondering though, does it really matter? And if so, should we not do the same in cuckoo?

Yes, I think we should do the same in Cuckoo, at least by default. Perhaps
have an advanced option to turn on JS emulation -- it has the potential to
really slow down the analysis or go into an infinite loop.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Jurriaan Bremer notifications@github.com
wrote:

I guess that works, too. I'm just wondering though, does it really matter?
And if so, should we not do the same in cuckoo?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHJezjVdvHjR73rEFjGZdlmsZkdSNDXkks5q4Os8gaJpZM4KhttE
.