| Article: |
A Canary Trap for URI Escaping | |
| Subject: | Sounds like a work-around | |
| Date: | 2006-05-29 13:50:49 | |
| From: | BasSchulte | |
|
Hi,
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.
-
Sounds like a work-around
2006-05-30 09:51:34 Robert Spier |
[Reply | View]
-
Sounds like a work-around
2006-06-04 10:40:22 BasSchulte [Reply | View]
Escaping/unescaping, encoding/decoding, same thing.
-
Escaping vs Encoding.
2006-06-05 21:09:34 Robert Spier |
[Reply | View]
Not at all. To oversimplify, Encoding is about what the bits mean. Escaping is about marking certain character sequences that have special meaning. -
Escaping vs Encoding.
2006-07-31 12:55:50 rdeforest [Reply | View]
I agree with BasSchulte - Escaping is a kind of Encoding. Both are ways of translating between one symbol system and another. Escaping is a the subset of encodinng where the contents are enveloped within the target coding. It is irrelevant that escaping uses prefixes to tag metacharachters. The problem (over-encoding) can still exist in other contexts.
I like the idea of adding a 'canary' to detect over-coding, but I would prefer to use something more robust, like a CRC and I don't like the idea of using it to determine when to stop decoding.
In the multiple redirect situation described in the article, I would prefer to fix the root problem: the redirects should not have been re-escaping the original data. This canary solution just hides the problem.




You are missing the point -- this is about escaping, not encoding. Browsers and multiple redirects will often re-escape things in annoying and unexpected ways.
-R