bugtraq - RE: base64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <28915501A44DBA4587FE1019D675F983093DB9@grfint.intern.adiscon.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:22:52 +0200
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@...adiscon.com>
To: "Alun Jones" <alun@...is.com>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: RE: base64


> > Do all this canonicalization before the message hits your 
> attachment 
> > type policy enforcement and malware scanner, so they only 
> have to deal 
> > with the common forms that everybody handles the same.
> 
> With the obvious disadvantage that we're all reduced to using 
> the lowest-common-subset of functionality.  Never mind 
> inventing or supporting new features, or adding international 
> file naming support, in your new email client, because the 
> mail server will strip all of that out, anyway.  I don't 
> think that's an appropriate answer.

I think it is. Traditionally, newer RFCs *extend* existing ones - they
do not break there formats. So properly engineered new functionality
will either a) live within the boundary of an existing protocol or b)
specifiy a new one. In the case of a) canonocalication will do no harm,
in the case of b) it will not be applied as this is a separate protocol.

Rainer