Re: [tor-bugs] #30442 [Obfuscation/Pluggable transport]: PT spec: should 255 bytes be sent in the RFC 1929 UNAME field?

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#30442: PT spec: should 255 bytes be sent in the RFC 1929 UNAME field?
-+
 Reporter:  mcs  |  Owner:  (none)
 Type:  defect   | Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium   |  Milestone:
Component:  Obfuscation/Pluggable transport  |Version:
 Severity:  Normal   | Resolution:
 Keywords:   |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:   | Points:
 Reviewer:   |Sponsor:
-+

Comment (by mcs):

 Late breaking news: ticket:29627#comment:11

--
Ticket URL: 
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki 
The Tor Project: anonymity online
___
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs

[tor-bugs] #30442 [Obfuscation/Pluggable transport]: PT spec: should 255 bytes be sent in the RFC 1929 UNAME field?

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#30442: PT spec: should 255 bytes be sent in the RFC 1929 UNAME field?
-+
 Reporter:  mcs  |  Owner:  (none)
 Type:  defect   | Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium   |  Milestone:
Component:  Obfuscation/Pluggable transport  |Version:
 Severity:  Normal   |   Keywords:
Actual Points:   |  Parent ID:
   Points:   |   Reviewer:
  Sponsor:   |
-+
 Section 3.5 of the PT spec says:
  If the encoded argument list is less than 255 bytes in
  length, the "PLEN" field must be set to "1" and the "PASSWD"
  field must contain a single NUL character.

 When Kathy Brade and I implemented #29627, we viewed the above as a spec
 bug and allowed up to 255 bytes to be sent in the RFC 1929 UNAME field.
 Was that the wrong thing to do? Or should the PT spec be changed to read
 "If the encoded argument list is less than or equal to 255 bytes in
 length..."?

--
Ticket URL: 
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki 
The Tor Project: anonymity online
___
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs