Through this process I’ve quickly realized that the toolsets available to manage code and its lifecycle have evolved and gotten more accessible to us “non-developers”. These efforts ranged from creating infrastructure using Microsoft ARM (Azure Resource Manager) and AWS CloudFormation templates to embracing serverless with Azure Functions and AWS Lambdas. Over the past two years I’ve done significantly more coding. Times have changed we must change with them. The concept of a development lifecycle and code repository typically consisted of a few permanently open Notepad instances or if you were really fancy, scripts saved to a file share with files labeled v1, v2, and so on. Those of us who came from the “rack and stack” generation did some scripting here and there where it workable using VB, Bash, Batch, Perl, or the many other languages who have had their time in the limelight. Thanks to both of you for clearing that up :).Īctually, the API discussion may be short: we already have a 'validate' option, whose spirit matches with this, so adding the check for the padding issue to that of the non-alphabet characters check would seem to me to be quite reasonable.Like many of my fellow veteran men and women in tech, I’ve been putting in the effort to evolve my skill set and embrace the industry’s shift to a more code focused world. It hadn't occured to me that you might want to allow for minor mistakes in the encoder - I must've missed that part of the standard. You'll probably want to wait for the design discussion to resolve before (re)writing the code :)Īh, that is enlightening.

If you want to submit an enhancement proposal, please do so in a new issue. I'm going to close this issue as not a bug. This does not mean that adding a strict mode would be out of line, but that would be an enhancement request, and would require some discussion about the API. Not only is it conforming, it is required, since the primary use (originally) of the base64 module was in the email package, where generous interpretation of the input is the standard. Python's behaviour is conforming to the standard.Īuthor: R.

(That's the meaning of 'MAY' in RFC 2119.) So I think

If decoders may choose to reject non-canonical encodings, then they may alsoĬhoose to accept them. In some environments, the alteration is critical and thereforeĭecoders MAY chose to reject an encoding if the pad bits have not Property (and others discussed in this document) holds, a canonical If this property do not hold, there is noĬanonical representation of base-encoded data, and multiple base-Įncoded strings can be decoded to the same binary data. Zero by conforming encoders, which is described in the descriptions Then all six bits of the first symbol are used, but only the first Implemented, lead to non-significant alterations of the encoded data.įor example, if the input is only one octet for a base 64 encoding, The padding step in base 64 and base 32 encoding can, if improperly I can't see that the issue has been resolved on the bug tracker, so I've worked up an alternative version of 'standard_b64decode()' which I'll upload, which ought to solve the issue. I've checked with a few other developers, and they agree that there is an issue here. Tested in Python 2.7 and 3.5 - the base64 module contains a couple of decoding methods, 'standard_b64decode()' and 'b66decode()' which incorrectly decode certain invalid base64 strings. Implementations of the current decoding functions, which handle the error cases.

Created on 07:59 by ShiftedBit, last changed 14:58 by admin.

Base64 decode python 2.7