you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -13 points 2 years ago (7 children)

When it's A FUCKING SECURITY issue, I know damn well what I'm talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Again you do not because the world consists of more than your interests and job description.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I know damn well what I'm talking about when someone could get scammed on "apple.com" but with a Cyrillic A.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You know the problem but not the set of reasonable or practical solutions.

    Anyways I and l look identical too in many fonts. Should we make them the same letter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    No, but that's what Unicode does.

    The solution is to force font creators to be fucking reasonable, just like how the Cyrillic A looks exactly like the Latin A. They are the same letter. The letters L and I are totally different (in handwriting at least)

    They already did that for CJK. Make characters that look the same in handwriting b have be same codepointer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I and l also look identical in many fonts. So you already have this problem in ascii. (To say nothing of all the non-printing characters!)

    If your security relies on a person being able to tell the difference between two characters controlled by an attacker your security is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is when you can register "apple.com" with the Cryillic A, fooling many.

    The I l issue is caused by fonts, not by ASCII.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment