aktenkoffer VS CyberChef

I was wondering about this, too.

> Making a custom form control with JavaScript is going to make life worse for a lot of people. Just don’t do it. The browser’s built-in controls are quite sufficient.

For my self-hosted minimal CRM (not really ready for anybody except me yet) [Aktenkoffer](https://github.com/svkurowski/aktenkoffer), I created a custom select that allows for filtering/searching of contacts when choosing sender/recipient for a given document. I don't use browser's select because:

1. There's a lot of contacts one has, and the list will become very long, a usecase for which select seems not to be the best fit, i.e. I don't want to load all the options always.

Then we take the encrypted text and use CyberChef to decrypt it.

Let's go to CyberChef and insert our pieces of evidence.

A parameter was changed from '2AMBCgIQBg' to 'CgIIAdgDAQ%3D%3D' which is just the correct base64 encoding they should have been using the entire time.

I don't think this was a hostile action by Google, I think someone just added better input validation for security reasons and it accidently broke the bad requests they were sending.

https://gchq.github.io/CyberChef/#recipe=URL_Decode()From_Ba...

❗This is indeed the flag, but the text is encrypted with Base64. Usually, the presence of padding character "=" indicates that's Base64 type of encoding (but that's only one of the hints). To decrypt it, we can use CyberChef. Copy-paste the text and we either:

It uses a combination of magic bytes (like the `file` command), entropy analysis and character frequency detection to determine whether an output is likely to be of interest to the user.

The file type mechanism is written here[0]. There's a list of all signatures we detect here[1].

[0] https://github.com/gchq/CyberChef/blob/master/src/core/lib/F...

I think this can be deciphered using CyberChef...