Re: message size
Kevin Smith <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xmpp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOb_FnzJxRfh4eZQo6uyLdRVtfJWajMHLuMQ8t3dJLv+H6OFJw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 March 2014 14:40, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ashley Ward <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 6 Mar 2014, at 14:28, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> You're saying to include, pre-encrypt, something like <spacer:junk >> >> xmlns:spacer='urn:...'>123465</spacer> in the plaintext order to defeat >> >> message size analysis of the ciphertext? >> > >> > It's XML - you could always just use <!-- --> comments or whitespace. >> >> Comments are slightly problematic, on account of being illegal. > > > Only on the wire, where they'd not appear in the plaintext. Presumably if we're encrypting stanza contents, we'd like the stanza contents to still be legal stanza contents once decrypted. I don't see a reason to start fiddling around with the rules so we could shove comments in here and only here. The shove-stuff-in-a-junk-namespace seems easier and less contentious. /K