Re: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation

[Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>]

On 24.02.2016 23:59:09, Foley, Alexander - GIS wrote:
> 
> Again, if we want one and only one way to defang content, I can get
> along with that. I would prefer that we do not encourage or allow
> defanging. I just want everyone to be aware of the burden that comes
> with defanged content, especially when it allows for multiple
> methods of defanging.
> 

I reckon this is as good a place as any in this impenetrable thread to
respond. o_O

I buy the arguments for pushing defanging/fanging onto the
implementers but as there clearly isn't consensus on that, let me pose
the question:

Can anyone point out a scenario where base64 encoding *would not work*
for defanging/fanging?

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B  A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
--
"It is always possible to add another level of indirection." --RFC 1925

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature