Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: [Full-disclosure] noise about full-width encoding bypass? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 21 May 2007 14:41:58 -0500 (EST) |
On 5/21/07, ascii <ascii@katamail.com> wrote:Brian Eaton wrote:To summarize what I've heard from various sources: I am missing something important. =) Both PHP and ASP.NET will decode these characters into their ASCII equivalents.(AFAIK) Only ASP.NET/IIS decodes that automatically. PHP *can* do that as like JSP and probably others but that has to happen explicitly in the application code or on an other layer.(Cracking up that somebody going by the handle ascii is commenting on character encoding issues. =) Given how few application platforms decode full-width unicode to ASCII equivalents, is there a case to be made that those application platforms that do decide this conversion is a good idea are broken? Put another way: should this be considered a bug in ASP.NET?
I think you could be on either side, but I would learn towards this being a feature than a bug. Multiple products appear to do the decoding in the same manner and intentionally perform this function. However, the recent advisories that went out were geared towards IDS/IPS products that were not designed to be able to recognize such half-/full-width encoded traffic. Unless there is some RFC or generally followed documentation saying the traffic should not be encoded/decoded as such, I would continue to lean towards this being a feature. It just appears to be a place much of the IT (security) world has overlooked. Steven securityzone.org
Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] noise about full-width encoding bypass?, Brian Eaton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] noise about full-width encoding bypass?, Brian Eaton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Full-disclosure] noise about full-width encoding bypass?, Brian Eaton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Full-disclosure] noise about full-width encoding bypass?, Valdis . Kletnieks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |