bugtraq - RE: Is a precise spec better?

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20040224131738.TXQG83660.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@BillDell>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:20:04 -0500
From: "Bill Royds" <full-disclosure@...ds.net>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: RE: Is a precise spec better?

The precision that is needed is so that the protocol data can be parsed
unambiguously. Some RFC descriptions, even those in widespread use, don't
have this precision. An example is RFC 2616 for HTTP/1.1 which describes the
URL format fairly precisely, but does not specify exactly what parts of the
general URL format are allowed and not allowed, causing the problem of the
userinfo@ prefix formerly allowed by Internet Explorer and no removed.
  One needs to ensure that a simple regular expression can parse the lines
of a syslog file, because that is most likely going to be used to analyse
the data. Nothing should be allowed that can't be expressed in a regular
expression, such as embedded parentheses that have meaning in the data.

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
Sent: February 24, 2004 6:43 AM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Is a precise spec better?

Hi lists,

I am seeking some advise. I am currently writing a what-is-to-become RFC
on the syslog protocol (http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/protocol.html). My
work is currently in draft status, which essentially means it can be
used for discussion but nothing is really fixed yet.

I have written quite precise guidelines on what a syslog implementation
should do. There are good arguments that this is too precise. I am now
trying to get more feedback on the overall design decision. As such, I
have summarized things on a web page:

http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/why-indepth.html

I would appreciate all comments on this topic. As I am posting to
security lists, I would especially welcome a discussion if a precise
specification can eventually safe us some security trouble - and if the
effort is worth it.

Many thanks,
Rainer

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html