You can't just assume UTF-8

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by lisper on Monday April 29, 2024 @09:50PM (#40206437)

Yes, and my example was an example meant to prove the opposite idea. The point is that it is irrelevant whether you compress or not. You can leak information either way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by iraqmtpizza on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @12:41AM (#40207306)

I leak the length of my phone call and you leak:

1. the length of your phone call; and

2. what language you were speaking; oh and

3. half the words you said

(i.e. pwned)

https://web.archive.org/web/20080901185111/https://technolog...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by lisper on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:37AM (#40207893)

> you leak [a bunch of stuff]

How? Remember, the uncompressed text gets encrypted too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by iraqmtpizza on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:49AM (#40207967)

It's in the article if you would bother to read it LOL. "simply measuring the size of packets without decoding them can identify whole words and phrases with a high rate of accuracy . . . [the researchers] can search for chosen phrases within the encrypted data"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by lisper on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:58AM (#40208013)

Ah.

That article is about voice calls. Totally different topic. Nothing to do with UTF-8.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't just assume UTF-8 by iraqmtpizza on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:56AM (#40208338)

You seem to struggle with abstractions. By the way, how would you have felt if you didn't have breakfast this morning? Just wondering.

Let's put our thinking caps on and consider what would happen if that same insecure voice call were encoded as little packets of text (UTF-8, even! Gasp!). Let's try to think of what might happen!

[ Parent | on HN ]