From: Ingo S. <in...@in...> - 2002-10-30 10:27:33
|
Hi... > have a look through the archives and try to find the "vision document". Hm... I couldnt locate it. :o( But I saw the idmef thing together with some other code... What`s that? For me it seems to be a different way to describe=20 vulnerabilities, so is it a second VulnXML draft? Please tell me some words about status/purpose. > canonicalization. We need to be sure that what we're filtering is in th= e=20 > charset we intend our filters to be handling, otherwise we open up=20 > ourselves to Unicode problems. Wew, I think this is really a tricky / huge problem. As you surely know, nearly all charset de/encoding mechanisms are not trivial. If you really try to canonicalize everything before filtering, I= bet=20 that the only attack an attacker has to try out is a simple overloading. As I already stated, on the protocol / db layer (which should considered to be the most sensitive one) you can assume at least everything to be eight-bit, if not seven (ascii) or even six bit (base64). Thus, the simple canonicalization on that layer would consist of bit mask= ing. The filters on other stages may well need a full-fledged charset=20 canonicalization, but it should only happen comparitively seldom that a user has to provide charset-dependent input (e.g. i18n names / search patterns or the like). > eh. canonicalization before flitering makes this moot. see above. > > 6. the pattern matching should reject a byte sequence immediately if = it > > finds some byte / byte pattern that is not allowed. > that's what the "good chars" stuff is for. Yep, of course... I just wanted to restate that, because there are regexp= =20 parts in the code, which *could* be more inefficient that the goodbytes approach. > I didn't include a "filter stack" in with the tarball, but we will have= one. Yep, just a hint to avoid reduplication of work. > because I haven't coded any java in a year =3D ) > All idiom problems are my own, sorry. Never mind, that's why the remarks came in triple braces. :o) Kind regards Ingo |