bugtraq - Re: Bypassing of web filters by using ASCII

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: <20060624185739.49914.qmail@web53715.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)" <x_at_y_or_z@...oo.com>
To: "Amit Klein (AKsecurity)" <aksecurity@...pop.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Bypassing of web filters by using ASCII


Tested with Mosaic 3.00 (the last publicly available), and it crashes (then again, it crashes on almost all websites)

Attila

----- Original Message ----
From: Amit Klein (AKsecurity) <aksecurity@...pop.com>
To: Vincent Archer <varcher@...yall.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com; k.huwig@...-ag.de
Sent: Friday, 23 June, 2006 6:12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Bypassing of web filters by using ASCII

On 23 Jun 2006 at 10:35, Vincent Archer wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 12:08:56AM +0200, Amit Klein (AKsecurity) wrote:
> > So what I don't understand now is why IE's "solution" is any better than Opera/Firefox?
> > 
> > Why is modifying the data (msb) any better than modifying the data-description (charset)?
> 
> The same problem did exist in RFC821, which specified the data path as
> being 7-bit, with the MSB set to 0. The venerable ancestor sendmail did
> enforce that, by and-ing each and every byte with 0x7F, which means that
> the IE solution is "slightly better", due to historical precedent.
> 

If we're into precedences, does anyone know what Mosaic 1.0 used to do in such case? after 
all, it was probably the first widely used browser (see 
http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_browse.htm), and it made some sense (in the early 90s) 
to conform to its de-facto browser standard.

> Not that it's good anyway.
>

Yep...

-Amit