Re: [protobuf] Re: Proto3 Storing UUID

Can you elaborate on the kinds of DOS or fuzzing attacks? Thanks On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 4:01:18 PM UTC-6 Tom Hintz wrote: > Neither string or byte array are good solutions from a security > perspective because they can be abused in certain kinds of DOS or fuzzing > attacks. I like the

Re: [protobuf] Re: Proto3 Storing UUID

Neither string or byte array are good solutions from a security perspective because they can be abused in certain kinds of DOS or fuzzing attacks. I like the idea of a specific implementation. On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 7:44:14 AM UTC-5 luca.guagli...@gmail.com wrote: > > I saw a pretty g

Re: [protobuf] Re: Proto3 Storing UUID

I saw a pretty good suggestion in this issue thread: Provide support for UUID type (a.k.a. GUID) #2224 @*gmabey *suggested to make use of the layout presented in RFC4122 section 4.1.2, @*billpoole-mi

Re: [protobuf] Re: Proto3 Storing UUID

I recommend bytes field. If you use string, it won't accept non-utf8 character. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM wrote: > Late answer, but I would have recommended string. Keeps it human readable > and also, I suppose, not have to be concerned with endian order. > > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:2

[protobuf] Re: Proto3 Storing UUID

Late answer, but I would have recommended string. Keeps it human readable and also, I suppose, not have to be concerned with endian order. On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-7, Osman Ali wrote: > > Looking use a 128 bit uuid according to rfc4122. For Proto3 should use > bytes type? > > So