Archive

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 4:41 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> To make sure that we don’t create a trap for generations to fall into, a
> paragraph could be added to the security considerations.
>

That sounds like a good idea.

Jeffrey

>
> Generally speaking, an implementation that wants to perform operations on
> input data will need to validate that to be appropriate for that
> beforehand.  The potential trap here might be that a Uint8ClampedArray
> might feel a lot more like a Uint8Array than other types do to each other
> so the validator would be misled.  So don’t do that…
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 2019, at 16:01, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > In https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/issues/6 I complained that
> > tag 68, marking clamped-uint8 data, is weird, in that clamped-ness is
> > a property of further processing rather than the data encoded in CBOR.
> > I worried that we might introduce security issues by allowing a
> > potentially-malicious sender to decide how the recipient processes the
> > received data.
> >
> > More abstractly, I believe this is the only tag in the document that
> > extends the CBOR generic data model.
> >
> > I don't think the current text adequately describes when a recipient
> > should create a Uint8ClampedArray from potentially-untrusted input
> > data. But I 1) didn't object during the last call and 2) don't think
> > this is a big enough issue to try to hold up the process if other
> > folks think it's fine.
> >
> > So, how do other folks feel about the marker for clamped uint8 arrays?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CBOR mailing list
> > CBOR@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> >
>
>

Re: [Cbor] Do we care about array-tags issue 6, clamped-uint8 arrays?