Re: [apps-discuss] update to rfc5965

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would worry that the same problem Franck's trying to workaround here
> would resurface. That is, scanners would read "inside" the ZIP. Of course,
> maybe they would anyway with a specific media type and a known password.
>
>  I don't think that a fixed password in this instance is wrong, given the
> purpose of the encryption is not actually to encrypt, per-se.
>
>  I have to wonder if there's an alternative, like a media type that is
> itself defined as base64 encoded, but I note Franck's statement that a ZIP
> with a known password is the deployed workaround; standardizing this
> running code seems like the simplest option.
>
>
I'm just thinking that if the common practice shifts to using a different
password, now we need a new RFC that updates the other one.  That doesn't
seem to me to be scalable.

Maybe what we need is a media type whose definition spells out the fact
that the encoding is meant to obscure the content from everything except
analysis software.

-MSK