From: Shawn Steele (???) (Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 18 2009 - 13:40:09 CST
Sorry, mail issue, so I got some of these out of order.
My concern isn’t necessarily the flexibility of allowing registration of new scripts/strings, but rather that there’s an inconsistency.
If Latin were suddenly registered ☺ and I had “catanddog.com”, it might start working in older browsers, however “CatAndDog.com” would fail because those code points didn’t have mapping rules for C, A & D. So the users would end up with an inconsistent experience, and it may even be difficult to explain why some versions work and some don’t.
Not necessarily saying that the flexibility is “bad”, just that I don’t think it’s worth it because it’s only a partial solution without some sort of idea about the mapping tables.
Of course “updating to new tables” is also only a partial solution since everyone doesn’t bother with updates, but at least then I can tell them why it doesn’t work ☺
-Shawn
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@amazon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Shawn Steele (???); Chris Weber ; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: Attack vectors through Unassigned Code Points in IDN
If it is blocked on the registrar end, illegal addresses wouldn’t point to anything… the attack is “possible”, but possibly harmless? (is there such a thing)
If it is blocked on the browser side, users are better insulated from potential harm, but valid registrations of new scripts would also potentially suffer.
I do think that showing spaces is probably not appropriate. Maybe the tofu (hollow box) or replacement (diamond with question mark) symbol would be better---it would look broken.
I’m not advocating one side or the other, just thinking out loud.
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
From: Shawn Steele (???) [mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Phillips, Addison; Chris Weber ; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: Attack vectors through Unassigned Code Points in IDN
However those code points may be mapped by an update. There’s no way to know if they should be mapped, kept, or even forbidden as a security hole. So even if you use the unassigned code points it still might not work. Unfortunately revving IDN will require browser updates.
-Shawn
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@amazon.com]
Sent: Poʻakolu, Malaki 18, 2009 10:50 AM
To: Shawn Steele (???); Chris Weber ; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: Attack vectors through Unassigned Code Points in IDN
Dropping unassigned code points would mean that newly assigned characters in Unicode could not be used without a browser update. So maybe that *isn’t* a good idea. Registering a name with unassigned code points is a bad idea (users will have a difficult time using the address and the name’s semantics/meaning/display would change when the character is assigned).
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Steele (???)
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Chris Weber ; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: Attack vectors through Unassigned Code Points in IDN
(speaking as myself)
Sounds like a Firefox bug. Unassigned code points should cause an error since they aren’t assigned. If they were dropped, then at the least, the shortened name should show up in the address bar.
For most users this probably doesn’t matter much since you can easily contrive URLs that look real at a quick glance or to someone not familiar with URLs, eg: https://www.google.com.secure.net would fool many users.
-Shawn
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Chris Weber
Sent: Pōʻ, Malaki 17, 2009 10:06 PM
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Attack vectors through Unassigned Code Points in IDN
In I’m reading RFC 3491 correctly, then IDNA allows for unassigned code points to exist in strings and domain names. This makes spoofing attacks possible when one these code points don’t have associated glyphs and basically show up as white space. This seems to be the case with some ranges like U+115A..U+115E under. In this case the following URL provides an attack vector in Firefox, because the domain nottrusted.org gets pushed way out of view in the Address Bar.
https://www.google.comᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚ.phreedom.org/
My question is – was this the intended behavior of IDNA to allow unassigned code points in IDN? Or is this more related to a font rendering issue?
7. Unassigned Code Points in Internationalized Domain Names
If the processing in [IDNA] specifies that a list of unassigned code
points be used, the system uses table A.1 from [STRINGPREP] as its
list of unassigned code points.
Thanks,
-Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 18 2009 - 13:41:46 CST