I want to have a program that takes 2 arguments, the first a master password and the second an easy to remember string, relevant to the generated password. It processes this information and turns it into a string. So my passwords wouldn't be written anywhere, I would just remember the master password and the easy to remember string for each password. For example something like
get-password --master-pass Gh3vBF2d --name stackoverflow
would get my password for Stackoverflow.
I tried to do it with sha512. It takes a hardcoded salt + master password + the relevant string and goes 60k+ rounds and returns the hash.
This is far from perfect as the hash is hex, so it has low entropy. I'd like the output to consist of alphanumerics, lower case and upper case and some special characters. I tried to convert it to base64 and the output is too short. Not only that, but the generated passwords seem similar, for example: N2Q5MjJkZWM=, N2YzNGRkYWQ=
Anyone has an idea how I could generate a high entropy password, about 16-20 chars in length and it must not generate similar passwords.
I have been using md5sum to good effect for a while.
Command:
echo -n Gh3vBF2d#stackoverflow | md5sum | cut --bytes=1-20
^^^ domain
^^^ Master password
Output:
0e8dc2aa9a8d85afc267
I am trying to find the most efficient way to encode 32 bit hashed string values into text strings for transmission/logging in low bandwidth environments. Complex compression can't be used because the hash values need to be contained in human readable text strings when logged and sent between client and host.
Consider the following contrived examples:
given the key/value map
table[0xFE12ABCD] = "models/texture/red.bmp";
table[0x3EF088AD] = "textures/diagnostics/pink.jpg";
and the string formats:
"Loaded asset (0x%08x)"
"Replaced (0x%08x) with (0x%08x)"
they could be printed as:
"Loaded asset models/texture/red.bmp"
"Replaced models/texture/red.bmp with textures/diagnostics/pink.jpg"
Or if the key/value map is known by the client and server:
"Loaded asset (0xFE12ABCD)"
"Replaced (0xFE12ABCD) with (0x3EF088AD)"
The receiver can then scan for the (0xNNNNNNNN) pattern and expand it locally.
This is what I am doing right now but I would like to find a way to represent the 32 bit value more efficiently. A simple step would be to use a better identifying token:
"Loaded asset $FE12ABCD"
"Replaced $1000DEEE with $3EF088AD"
Which already reduces the length of each token - $ is not used anywhere else so it is reasonable.
However, what other options are there to make that 32 bit value even smaller? I can't use an index - it has to be a full 32 bit value because in some cases the generator of the string has the hash and sometimes it has a string it will hash immediately.
A common solution is to use Base-85 coding. You can code four bytes into five Base-85 digits, since 855 > 232. Pick 85 printable characters and assign them to the digit values 0..84. Then do base conversion to go either way. Since there are 94 printable characters in ASCII, it is usually easy to find 85 that are "safe" in whatever constrains your strings to be "readable".
I had implemented app on some device which was dealing with sending receiving data from server.
Data from server would usually come in this form:
"1;username;someInteger;"
Parsing was easy, and I was using strtok as you can imagine to retrieve individual values from that string such as: 1, username, and someInteger.
But now a situation may occur when the server will send me unicode string as username.
I think good idea is to use the username encoded as a UTF-8 string (am I right?). What do you recommend - how should I parse it from above string? What symbol to use as a separator for example (e.g., instead of ";"), or which functions to use to extract the username from above string?
as this is some embedded device I want to avoid installing some third party libraries there (which might not be even possible) so more "pure" ways would be more desirable.
The character ';' is the same in UTF-8 as it is in ASCII, because the 127 first characters in both encodings are the same. That means you can still use strtok to split on the ';'.
The very thing with UTF8 is that you hardly have to do anything at all. ASCII characters still encode as the same ASCII bytes they always would, so if you just continue to use semicolon separators, you don't have to do anything at all.
This is happening in one cookie with keys in one key only.
The value should be "ÅÙÏ‘‹„‰Š„‹".
The value should be "ÅÙÏ‘‹„‰Š„‹".
Erm, really? That looks like the corrupted, wrong-character set version to me! :-) Either way, “ϑ” is what you get when you save that string in Windows Western European encoding (cp1252) and then read it back in as UTF-8, removing all the ‘invalid character’ codes that result because it's not a valid UTF-8 string. So you've got a classic reading-and-writing-using-different-encodings problem.
As a general rule you can't get away with putting non-ASCII characters in a cookie (name or value) directly. You'll need an application-level encoding mechanism of some sort; one of the most popular ways is to URL-encode the UTF-8 representation of the characters you want, similarly to how JavaScript's encodeURIComponent does it.
(Unfortunately ASP classic has very poor support for handling Unicode.)
Final Solution:
Save As different file with "correct" encoding
Changed encoding
From "Unicode (UTF-8 with signature) -Codepage 65001"
To "Western European (Windows) - Codepage 1252"
We're using encoding on our cookies and some of the resulting characters can cause problems. So what we did is take the cookie string and encode it in HEX. - Problems Solved.
Is it possible to use a RegEx to validate, or sanitize Base64 data? That's the simple question, but the factors that drive this question are what make it difficult.
I have a Base64 decoder that can not fully rely on the input data to follow the RFC specs. So, the issues I face are issues like perhaps Base64 data that may not be broken up into 78 (I think it's 78, I'd have to double check the RFC, so don't ding me if the exact number is wrong) character lines, or that the lines may not end in CRLF; in that it may have only a CR, or LF, or maybe neither.
So, I've had a hell of a time parsing Base64 data formatted as such. Due to this, examples like the following become impossible to decode reliably. I will only display partial MIME headers for brevity.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
VGhpcyBpcyBzaW1wbGUgQVNDSUkgQmFzZTY0IGZvciBTdGFja092ZXJmbG93IGV4YW1wbGUu
Ok, so parsing that is no problem, and is exactly the result we would expect. And in 99% of the cases, using any code to at least verify that each char in the buffer is a valid base64 char, works perfectly. But, the next example throws a wrench into the mix.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
http://www.stackoverflow.com
VGhpcyBpcyBzaW1wbGUgQVNDSUkgQmFzZTY0IGZvciBTdGFja092ZXJmbG93IGV4YW1wbGUu
This a version of Base64 encoding that I have seen in some viruses and other things that attempt to take advantage of some mail readers desire to parse mime at all costs, versus ones that go strictly by the book, or rather RFC; if you will.
My Base64 decoder decodes the second example to the following data stream. And keep in mind here, the original stream is all ASCII data!
[0x]86DB69FFFC30C2CB5A724A2F7AB7E5A307289951A1A5CC81A5CC81CDA5B5C1B19481054D0D
2524810985CD94D8D08199BDC8814DD1858DAD3DD995C999B1BDDC8195E1B585C1B194B8
Anyone have a good way to solve both problems at once? I'm not sure it's even possible, outside of doing two transforms on the data with different rules applied, and comparing the results. However if you took that approach, which output do you trust? It seems that ASCII heuristics is about the best solution, but how much more code, execution time, and complexity would that add to something as complicated as a virus scanner, which this code is actually involved in? How would you train the heuristics engine to learn what is acceptable Base64, and what isn't?
UPDATE:
Do to the number of views this question continues to get, I've decided to post the simple RegEx that I've been using in a C# application for 3 years now, with hundreds of thousands of transactions. Honestly, I like the answer given by Gumbo the best, which is why I picked it as the selected answer. But to anyone using C#, and looking for a very quick way to at least detect whether a string, or byte[] contains valid Base64 data or not, I've found the following to work very well for me.
[^-A-Za-z0-9+/=]|=[^=]|={3,}$
And yes, this is just for a STRING of Base64 data, NOT a properly formatted RFC1341 message. So, if you are dealing with data of this type, please take that into account before attempting to use the above RegEx. If you are dealing with Base16, Base32, Radix or even Base64 for other purposes (URLs, file names, XML Encoding, etc.), then it is highly recommend that you read RFC4648 that Gumbo mentioned in his answer as you need to be well aware of the charset and terminators used by the implementation before attempting to use the suggestions in this question/answer set.
From the RFC 4648:
Base encoding of data is used in many situations to store or transfer data in environments that, perhaps for legacy reasons, are restricted to US-ASCII data.
So it depends on the purpose of usage of the encoded data if the data should be considered as dangerous.
But if you’re just looking for a regular expression to match Base64 encoded words, you can use the following:
^(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{4})*(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{2}==|[A-Za-z0-9+/]{3}=)?$
^(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{4})*(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{2}==|[A-Za-z0-9+/]{3}=)?$
This one is good, but will match an empty String
This one does not match empty string :
^(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{4})*(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{2}==|[A-Za-z0-9+/]{3}=|[A-Za-z0-9+/]{4})$
The answers presented so far fail to check that the Base64 string has all pad bits set to 0, as required for it to be the canonical representation of Base64 (which is important in some environments, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648#section-3.5) and therefore, they allow aliases that are different encodings for the same binary string. This could be a security problem in some applications.
Here is the regexp that verifies that the given string is not just valid base64, but also the canonical base64 string for the binary data:
^(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/]{4})*(?:[A-Za-z0-9+/][AQgw]==|[A-Za-z0-9+/]{2}[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]=)?$
The cited RFC considers the empty string as valid (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648#section-10) therefore the above regex also does.
The equivalent regular expression for base64url (again, refer to the above RFC) is:
^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_-]{4})*(?:[A-Za-z0-9_-][AQgw]==|[A-Za-z0-9_-]{2}[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]=)?$
Neither a ":" nor a "." will show up in valid Base64, so I think you can unambiguously throw away the http://www.stackoverflow.com line. In Perl, say, something like
my $sanitized_str = join q{}, grep {!/[^A-Za-z0-9+\/=]/} split /\n/, $str;
say decode_base64($sanitized_str);
might be what you want. It produces
This is simple ASCII Base64 for StackOverflow exmaple.
The best regexp which I could find up till now is in here
https://www.npmjs.com/package/base64-regex
which is in the current version looks like:
module.exports = function (opts) {
opts = opts || {};
var regex = '(?:[A-Za-z0-9+\/]{4}\\n?)*(?:[A-Za-z0-9+\/]{2}==|[A-Za-z0-9+\/]{3}=)';
return opts.exact ? new RegExp('(?:^' + regex + '$)') :
new RegExp('(?:^|\\s)' + regex, 'g');
};
Here's an alternative regular expression:
^(?=(.{4})*$)[A-Za-z0-9+/]*={0,2}$
It satisfies the following conditions:
The string length must be a multiple of four - (?=^(.{4})*$)
The content must be alphanumeric characters or + or / - [A-Za-z0-9+/]*
It can have up to two padding (=) characters on the end - ={0,2}
It accepts empty strings
To validate base64 image we can use this regex
/^data:image/(?:gif|png|jpeg|bmp|webp)(?:;charset=utf-8)?;base64,(?:[A-Za-z0-9]|[+/])+={0,2}
private validBase64Image(base64Image: string): boolean {
const regex = /^data:image\/(?:gif|png|jpeg|bmp|webp|svg\+xml)(?:;charset=utf-8)?;base64,(?:[A-Za-z0-9]|[+/])+={0,2}/;
return base64Image && regex.test(base64Image);
}
The shortest regex to check RFC-4648 compiliance enforcing canonical encoding (i.e. all pad bits set to 0):
^(?=(.{4})*$)[A-Za-z0-9+/]*([AQgw]==|[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]=)?$
Actually this is the mix of this and that answers.
I found a solution that works very well
^(?:([a-z0-9A-Z+\/]){4})*(?1)(?:(?1)==|(?1){2}=|(?1){3})$
It will match the following strings
VGhpcyBpcyBzaW1wbGUgQVNDSUkgQmFzZTY0IGZvciBTdGFja092ZXJmbG93IGV4YW1wbGUu
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhcw==
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3U=
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3Vy
while it won't match any of those invalid
YW5#IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhcw==
YW55IGNhc=5hbCBwbGVhcw==
YW55%%%%IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3V
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc
YW***55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVh=
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc==
YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc===
My simplified version of Base64 regex:
^[A-Za-z0-9+/]*={0,2}$
Simplification is that it doesn't check that its length is a multiple of 4. If you need that - use other answers. Mine is focusing on simplicity.
To test it: https://regex101.com/r/zdtGSH/1