[UA-discuss] Fwd: Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis

[Asmus Freytag]

The reason I forwarded the message below is that many people find something
familiar and  accessible about emoji and will not understand why there
should be more security concerns about them than about a bunch
of bewilderingly similar and complex Chinese ideographs or a bunch
of "dawn-of-time-emoji" aka Hieroglyphics, both of which are PVALID.

That means that some consciousness-raising needs to happen somewhere
and fast.

A./




On 3/12/2018 9:41 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> We generally think of emoji as a poor choice for reliable identifiers.
>
> Which makes this discussion on the public unicode mailing list 
> somewhat interesting.
>
> A./
>
> PS: the discussion is archived 
> https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m03/0075.html
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis
> Date: 	Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:09 +0900
> From: 	Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> Organization: 	Aoyama Gakuin University
> To: 	Keith Turner <keith at deenlo.com>
> CC: 	unicode Unicode Discussion <Unicode at unicode.org>
>
>
>
> On 2018/03/12 02:07, Keith Turner via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Yeah, it certainly results in larger utf8 strings.  For example a sha256
> > hash is 112 bytes when encoded as Ecoji utf8.  For base64, sha256 is 44
> > bytes.
> > 
> > Even though its more bytes, Ecoji has less visible characters than base64
> > for sha256.  Ecoji has 28 visible characters and base64 44.  So that makes
> > me wonder which one would be quicker for a human to verify on average?
> > Also, which one is more accurate for a human to verify? I have no idea. For
> > accuracy, it seems like a lot of thought was put into the visual uniqueness
> > of Unicode emojis.
>
> Using emoji to help people verify security information is an interesting
> idea. What I'm afraid is that even if emoji are designed with
> distinctiveness in mind, some people may have difficulties distinguish
> all the various face variants. Also, while emoji get designed so that
> in-font distinguishability is high, the same may not apply across fonts
> (e.g. if one has to compare a printed version with a version on-screen).
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>
> >> 2018-03-11 6:04 GMT+01:00 Keith Turner via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
> >>
> >>> I created a neat little project based on Unicode emojis.  I thought
> >>> some on this list may find it interesting.  It encodes arbitrary data
> >>> as 1024 emojis.  The project is called Ecoji and is hosted on github
> >>> at https://github.com/keith-turner/ecoji
> >>>
> >>> Below are some examples of encoding and decoding.
> >>>
> >>> $ echo 'Unicode emojis are awesome!!' | ecoji
> >>> 🐦😱🔫🤜👢🔥🇮🐾💎🗓🔯🚜👖🚢🐙🌩💮🔪🎨🤚👥📤🌈📑
> >>>
> >>> $ echo 🐦😱🔫🤜👢🔥🇮🐾💎🗓🔯🚜👖🚢🐙🌩💮🔪🎨🤚👥📤🌈📑   | ecoji -d
> >>> Unicode emojis are awesome!!
> >>>
> >>> I would eventually like to create a base4096 version when there are more
> >>> emojis.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20180312/fa8c50c6/attachment.html>