Live data from Hacker News

Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

blogs.technet.com

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#111
post #102
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tab completion

On sane systems, tab completion refuses to complete if there is more than one potential completion. Unfortunately, I seem to remember that Windows does some silly thing where it cycles through the possibilities…

Vim typically cycles through the possibilities as well.

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#112
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not yet. But it'll be in Haskell anyhow, so you're probably not actually interested :) There are other such libraries for other languages, poke around. See for instance http://htmlpurifier.org/ .

Even more intriguing. What exactly were you writing in Haskell that needed a super-paranoid html sanitizer? Yet another web server/blog/cms? Or something way more cooler?

Yet another blog, except not targeted for release or anything, just to run my own site. To replace the Django blog that runs my site. It's sort of my entertaining diversion, you know? Working with my own fresh, clean code base where I can try some ideas out without having to carry around a couple of man-centuries worth of legacy code every time I step at work. The cleansing library doubles as my HTML formatter, too, doing things like ensuring close italic tags and such. The paranoia is half real, half fun exercise.

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my BlackBerry, inadvertently swiping the trackpad while typing a vowel results in an accented version of the vowel. There might a similar mechanism at work in Samsung devices.

I see. What is interesting is that most of the requests come from Samsung devices in Spanish-speaking countries, so I guess their keyboards must make it even easier to make the mistake.

On the iphone, at least, holding down the key for a second reveals accents for a lot of letters. If I was typing slowly and not paying a lot of attention (in the bathroom or something, perhaps?), it is possible for me to not notice typing one of these...

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#114
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wide variety of exploits such as these suggests that we need to integrate character spoofing into the general malware detection system on devices, which evolves over time (in the way that virus checkers evolve, with lots of human input) to deal with known or anticipated problems. I'm thinking of a system that combines aspects of virus checking, malware detection, bayesian spam filtering, and spell checking. A Uni…

I would augment the human-generated tables of confusable characters with something like OCR run on each font to detect similarly-shaped characters. The algorithm could provide a score indicating how similar any two characters are (or maybe how similar a given character is to all other characters, combined with statistical frequency of that character), which could be weighted and incorporated in a malware detection he…

Overdesign alert.

How about the OS adopting the convention that any codes outside of a few trusted (expected) alphabets get displayed in a way that makes it obvious to a human that they aren't what they look like (eg, a bright red border or something).

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would augment the human-generated tables of confusable characters with something like OCR run on each font to detect similarly-shaped characters. The algorithm could provide a score indicating how similar any two characters are (or maybe how similar a given character is to all other characters, combined with statistical frequency of that character), which could be weighted and incorporated in a malware detection he…

Overdesign alert. How about the OS adopting the convention that any codes outside of a few trusted (expected) alphabets get displayed in a way that makes it obvious to a human that they aren't what they look like (eg, a bright red border or something).

Overdesign alert.

How about the OS adopting the convention that any codes outside of a few trusted (expected) alphabets get displayed in a way that makes it obvious to a human that they aren't what they look like (eg, a bright red border or something).

AIUI, there are two major reasons this wasn't done in the first place, and why more complex solutions are necessary:

1. Those few trusted alphabets would probably include Greek, Cyrillic, and Latin, all of which have similar or identical characters with different Unicode code points.

2. The goal of Unicode support, localized domain names, etc. is for software to be equally easy to use for all languages, rather than to favor some languages over others.

That said, it might be advantageous to have a locale-specific approach, so that characters not used by the current language will be highlighted. But, that could be seen as hindering the ability of sites in one region to reach users in another region, doesn't work well for text that includes multiple languages, and malware writers will probably find a way to mark their characters as expected anyway.

Edit: also, the two words "get displayed" paper over a vast amount of complexity in the way operating systems and applications display text. It would probably be just as much work as any of the other solutions proposed.

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#116
post #28
post #2

Yes - reminds me of how several users would exploit the Bolt.com chat system (back in the day) using upper-case 'I's as lower case 'L's to pose as different users and cause mayhem.

In the old days, I tried once to put a backtick ` on my username in counter-strike as a way to prevent admins from kicking me :P (the backtick toggles the console, and kicking requires typing 'kick ' from the console). I was kicked within 2 seconds from joining the server.

I run a tf2 server, and we can just type /kick na`me in chat to kick you. (tf2 is like cs is that ` is console)

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#117
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It behaves funny in a very "simple" way. Selections have this little problem where you move your mouse over the visual representation but the selection is in the logical representation. So say your logical text is this: ltr LTR. where the capital letters are RTL chars (whether because they're actually RTL or because of an RLO in the char stream). That is, the above represents the reading order. Visually this would lo…

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't think that text selection defines end points and everything between the endpoints (in the physical text) is highlighted. So, if you have: Hi RLO elgooG ^ select ^ I expected (everything between the logical end points selected): Hi Google ^^^^^^^ (selected) In other words, I expected text selection to obey RLO character as well.

I think you're confusing your logical and physical, or I'm misunderstanding you.

Moving your mouse happens over the physical text and sets the selection endpoints. Then everything that's logically (as opposed to physically) between those endpoints is highlighted. Your "I expected" diagram is showing the text physically between the endpoints, not the text logically between them...

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#118
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more intriguing. What exactly were you writing in Haskell that needed a super-paranoid html sanitizer? Yet another web server/blog/cms? Or something way more cooler?

Yet another blog, except not targeted for release or anything, just to run my own site. To replace the Django blog that runs my site. It's sort of my entertaining diversion, you know? Working with my own fresh, clean code base where I can try some ideas out without having to carry around a couple of man-centuries worth of legacy code every time I step at work. The cleansing library doubles as my HTML formatter, too,…

Ah, yes - I see where you're coming from. Some day I hope to finish my blog, written in C :D Good luck for your haskell blog :)

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#119
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any other hidden file, it's not rendered until you choose to show hidden files and then at the point, it shows the file, but the icon is semi transparent.

Sorry, I meant how do you make a file hidden?

     attrib +h
at the cmd prompt, the file properties in explorer would have a checkbox for this too

Re: Can we believe our eyes? Misleading people with Unicode.

#120
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that disturbing, one of the first things I do after a clean install of windows is to check the "Show Hidden Files", which was hard to find in Windows 7 :/ I thought most tech savvie people did that?

I wonder why you say it was hard to find - it's always been under the View tab in Folder Options. Maybe because of the Control Panel revamp, or the fact that the menu-bar is hidden by default in Explorer windows?

It's due to the hidden menu, same drill with Office 2010 and finding "Save As.." etc, I've never been much for just using the keyboard, I like using the mouse to navigate the menus ;)
Post reply on HN