agnoster / base32-js Goto Github PK

Hex: 17O57684bea1f9331418b633a8f373119d765fd4

It cannot be an "O" letter, it's a zero instead ;-)

Hex: 17057684bea1f9331418b633a8f373119d765fd4

It will be great to add declaration file as @types/base32-js is not available.

Is there a strong reason not to use probably most authentic RFC 4648 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648 ) base32 characters? (i.e. alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz234567")? It took me 2 hours debbuging when I was implementing some protocol requiring "base32" using this library...

...

Why it is returning different result compared to other base32 libs?
like base-x or hi-base32

If I base32 encode this string my name is hereslkdjfaklsjdfa234234@#$!!@35465*()&(*^*&^*&%&^%///劳动力. I get dnwj0vk1dnjj0ubk41m6awk5edp6pt3actgppv3kd9j6cr9j6cu34ctm80hj889180tkad1p6mn2ga9650n5wah6brn2c996brjjybtfpundefinedmundefinedp. Notice undefined in string output.

Python outputs, NV4SA3TBNVSSA2LTEBUGK4TFONWGWZDKMZQWW3DTNJSGMYJSGM2DEMZUIARSIIJBIAZTKNBWGUVCQKJGFAVF4KRGLYVCMJJGLYSS6LZP4WFLHZMKVDSYVGY=

I would expect this to match the python output or throw an error.

I believe your decoder's finish() function is wrong, but I don't know enough of the specifics of the function to pin down exactly why. Either way, you're referencing a variable (bits) that only exists in an Encoder, so there is at least one issue there. Just figured I'd mention it.

We use base32 in the browser with browserify. sha1 requires crypto which adds 5k+ lines to the bundle. Also, I don't think sha1 will work in the browser anyway...

In the fork I separated sha1 (milojs@9c7fe12), but I don't think it is a good solution, it will break code that uses it. Any better ideas?

This works fine for some strings, but for examples like these I get invalid results:

base32.encode("юзер@екзампл.ком.example.com");

output:

9rvundefinedag206mxundefinedecundefinedw7wxjweundefinedy7gq6ay31dnr6rt9ecdqp

input:

base32.decode(9rvundefinedag206mxundefinedecundefinedw7wxjweundefinedy7gq6ay31dnr6rt9ecdqpu");

results in:

N7ªµÏ\Õ@@5;ªµÏ\×3Uk¹¼?;.;Uk¹¾<.example.com

As you can see, it does not result in the original string when it is decoded. Not sure why.

Hey, any chance for a Bower package? It would be cool to use the same code in the browser and on nodejs.

Thanks!

Mike

• Missing LICENSE SPDX identifier in package.json
• Still sub 1.0.0 yet 5 years old+

I see optimist is defined as a runtime dependency on this library, but I don't see it used. Is it needed, or perhaps it's just an artifact of an old commit?

Dear Author,

Thanks for your great work! But I need to use it for decoding and use C for encoding... Do you know if there is a C lib which is compatible with this base32 encoder/decoder?

Could you please update (or swap out because of deprecation notice) optimist?

| Id | Module | Title | Path | Sev. | Url |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1067342 | minimist | Prototype Pollution in minimist | optimist>minimist | critical | GHSA-xvch-5gv4-984h |
| 1070255 | minimist | Prototype Pollution in minimist | optimist>minimist | moderate | GHSA-vh95-rmgr-6w4m |

Dear Isaac,
current implementation supports Uint8Array for input like this base32.encode(array), right?
Now I'm curious why both 32-byte (output: 52 chars) and 64-byte (output: 103 chars) arrays as well as relatively long routine UTF8 strings encoded with Base32 predictably ends with either 0 or g.
Any thoughts?

Is var missing on purpose ? https://github.com/agnoster/base32-js/blob/master/lib/base32.js#L234

I noticed a typo at https://github.com/agnoster/base32-js/blob/master/lib/base32.js#L149 , it looks like you want to say "crypto" instead of "cryto".

Thanks for the great library!

Dear Isaac,
console.log(base32.decode(base32.encode("love"))); works as expected, it returns love, hooray.

But let's step aside the anglosaxonian world and type something in Cyrillic. For example, equivalent of word love is любовь in Russian, yet console.log(base32.decode(base32.encode("любовь"))); returns garbled piece of text ?OªµÏ \Õ?Uk��¹²L.

There are various intermediate solutions to this issue. I like the following two:

• console.log(decodeURIComponent(escape(base32.decode(base32.encode(unescape(encodeURIComponent("любовь"))))))); returns любовь
• console.log(UTF8.decode(base32.decode(base32.encode(UTF8.encode("любовь"))))); returns любовь

var UTF8 = {
    encode: function(string) {
        string = string.replace(/\r\n/g, "\n");
        var utftext = "";
        for (var n = 0; n < string.length; n++) {
            var c = string.charCodeAt(n);
            if (c < 128) {
                utftext += String.fromCharCode(c);
            } else if ((c > 127) && (c < 2048)) {
                utftext += String.fromCharCode((c >> 6) | 192);
                utftext += String.fromCharCode((c & 63) | 128);
            } else {
                utftext += String.fromCharCode((c >> 12) | 224);
                utftext += String.fromCharCode(((c >> 6) & 63) | 128);
                utftext += String.fromCharCode((c & 63) | 128);
            }
        }
        return utftext;
    },
    decode: function(utftext) {
        var string = "",
            i = 0,
            c = 0,
            c2 = 0;
        while (i < utftext.length) {
            c = utftext.charCodeAt(i);
            if (c < 128) {
                string += String.fromCharCode(c);
                i++;
            } else if ((c > 191) && (c < 224)) {
                c2 = utftext.charCodeAt(i + 1);
                string += String.fromCharCode(((c & 31) << 6) | (c2 & 63));
                i += 2;
            } else {
                c2 = utftext.charCodeAt(i + 1);
                c3 = utftext.charCodeAt(i + 2);
                string += String.fromCharCode(((c & 15) << 12) | ((c2 & 63) << 6) | (c3 & 63));
                i += 3;
            }
        }
        return string;
    }
};

Also, there's Encoding API.

const txtencoder = new TextEncoder;
message = "любовь";
txtencoder.encode(message); // returns UTF8 Uint8Array

Could you be so kind and make it working from the box without those additional helpers so users around the globe could enjoy your library without a hassle? Developer of Base91's implementation already did it.

Just looking to trim my deps so I thought I'd ask. That one little dep pulls in 4 other deps.

Hi folks,

I noticed the following behaviour

> base32.decode(base32.encode("deadbeef111"))
< "d{adbe{f111"

which appers to be introduced by the alias behaviour. I nulled the aliases dictionnary to retablish the desired behaviour.

> base32.decode(base32.encode("deadbeef111"))
< "deadbeef111"

I'm getting different results between implementations. I'm missing something. Other than the fact that this implementation is using crockford's limited character set why are these two base32 encodings wildly off?

var number = 14974;
number.toString(32); // -> eju
base32.encode(number.toString()); // -> 64u3jdtm

Please : why did you use the U instead of S ?

The crockford alpahbeth is : 0123456789abcdefghjkmnpqrstvwxyz
The one you use is : 0123456789abcdefghjkmnpqrtuvwxyz
Not the S is not present in your alphabet and the U is present.

This is not the Crockford Base32 correct implementation :
source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base32 and https://www.crockford.com/base32.html and all other package in all other language (ie Python for my backend....)
I've lost 4 hours to figure out what's happened ....