[UA-discuss] Fwd: Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis
dusan at dukes.in.rs
Mon Mar 12 18:47:16 UTC 2018
Until the standards are not in place – yes, IETF, ICANN and bunch of other places, but UASG is not a place for that.
We don’t need to defend Chinese script or raise awareness on Chinese ideograms vs emoji.
Personally, I am not happy with RFC on EAI, which is the main topic here, but I am not ready to discuss it here. Instead, I was debating with creators of relevant RFCs about my concerns.
Therefore, I think it’s not a topic for us, not yet (if ever).
From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 5:50 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Fwd: Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis
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
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.
PS: the discussion is archived https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m03/0075.html
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:09 +0900
Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <mailto:unicode at unicode.org> <unicode at unicode.org>
Aoyama Gakuin University
Keith Turner <mailto:keith at deenlo.com> <keith at deenlo.com>
unicode Unicode Discussion <mailto:Unicode at unicode.org> <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
> 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).
>> 2018-03-11 6:04 GMT+01:00 Keith Turner via Unicode <mailto:unicode at unicode.org> <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
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the UA-discuss