<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Cookies Are Bad For You #3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/</link>
	<description>Longer than a blog; shorter than a book</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: tramadol hydrochloride</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-70239</link>
		<dc:creator>tramadol hydrochloride</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-70239</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;tramadol hydrochloride&lt;/strong&gt;

news</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>tramadol hydrochloride</strong></p>
<p>news</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aleph</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-36031</link>
		<dc:creator>Aleph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-36031</guid>
		<description>Masklin, you're right with cookies trivially intercepted by any little bot out there, but your bot cannot pass easily a "Turing test" challenge (Captcha). HTTP Basic (or digest) Auth does not offer any hook for this (unless you create a session and redirect to the HTTP Basic login page. Cookies/URL rewriting has nothing to do with authentication but session linkage (if you use an authentication ticket and use a cookie to transfer from client to server, and you do not add any protection mechanism to the cookie+ticket, e.g. SSL + schemes to detect replayed/modified cookies, your 'authenticated session' is under risk). Unfortunately, such protection mechanisms are VERY difficult to design and implement properly. 

My feeling is that no authentication mechanism is the best choice: SSL w/ client certificates is robust if done properly with keypair management (a big problem for most users and web sites, and nobody checks the little padlock), HTTP Simple Auth may be intuitive for end-users but it is not very practice due to the limitations shown by moe, FORM-based authentication is a 'do-it-yourself' (risks could be reasonably low, but the devil is in the implementation). HTTP Digest Auth is not widely supported in browsers and web servers (but only adds a bit of security to the HTTP Basic Auth). Probably one-time passwords (or variations, like the authentication matrix that some home banking sites provide), and biometry, are much more 'secure', but I am dreaming here...

If you have a keylogger sniffing your keystrokes, no authentication scheme can help you, but this is a different problem.
At the end, in the web nobody knows I'm a dog!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Masklin, you&#8217;re right with cookies trivially intercepted by any little bot out there, but your bot cannot pass easily a &#8220;Turing test&#8221; challenge (Captcha). HTTP Basic (or digest) Auth does not offer any hook for this (unless you create a session and redirect to the HTTP Basic login page. Cookies/URL rewriting has nothing to do with authentication but session linkage (if you use an authentication ticket and use a cookie to transfer from client to server, and you do not add any protection mechanism to the cookie+ticket, e.g. SSL + schemes to detect replayed/modified cookies, your &#8216;authenticated session&#8217; is under risk). Unfortunately, such protection mechanisms are VERY difficult to design and implement properly. </p>
<p>My feeling is that no authentication mechanism is the best choice: SSL w/ client certificates is robust if done properly with keypair management (a big problem for most users and web sites, and nobody checks the little padlock), HTTP Simple Auth may be intuitive for end-users but it is not very practice due to the limitations shown by moe, FORM-based authentication is a &#8216;do-it-yourself&#8217; (risks could be reasonably low, but the devil is in the implementation). HTTP Digest Auth is not widely supported in browsers and web servers (but only adds a bit of security to the HTTP Basic Auth). Probably one-time passwords (or variations, like the authentication matrix that some home banking sites provide), and biometry, are much more &#8217;secure&#8217;, but I am dreaming here&#8230;</p>
<p>If you have a keylogger sniffing your keystrokes, no authentication scheme can help you, but this is a different problem.<br />
At the end, in the web nobody knows I&#8217;m a dog!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Masklinn</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-17700</link>
		<dc:creator>Masklinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-17700</guid>
		<description>&#62; Login based on â€œnon standardâ€ HTTP authentication and cookies are for this reason much safer.

Except that this one doesn't hold true: it's trivial to create a site-specific cookie-aware bot. For example in Python all you need to do is

--
import cookielib, urllib2
opener = urllib2.build_opener(urllib2.HTTPCookieProcessor(cookielib.CookieJar()))
--
You're done, any URL you'll open with `opener` will be able to store cookies in the cookiejar and retrieve them from it.

Anyone who'd want to automate data retrieval from your website can trivially do it, even if you're using a cookie-based authentication scheme.

The only issue is with general purpose tools (such as feed readers) because they can't automate finding the login/password names/inputs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; Login based on â€œnon standardâ€ HTTP authentication and cookies are for this reason much safer.</p>
<p>Except that this one doesn&#8217;t hold true: it&#8217;s trivial to create a site-specific cookie-aware bot. For example in Python all you need to do is</p>
<p>&#8211;<br />
import cookielib, urllib2<br />
opener = urllib2.build_opener(urllib2.HTTPCookieProcessor(cookielib.CookieJar()))<br />
&#8211;<br />
You&#8217;re done, any URL you&#8217;ll open with `opener` will be able to store cookies in the cookiejar and retrieve them from it.</p>
<p>Anyone who&#8217;d want to automate data retrieval from your website can trivially do it, even if you&#8217;re using a cookie-based authentication scheme.</p>
<p>The only issue is with general purpose tools (such as feed readers) because they can&#8217;t automate finding the login/password names/inputs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ssl</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-14466</link>
		<dc:creator>ssl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-14466</guid>
		<description>This is most likely the less intelligent I have read in a long time. The reason sites use form based login and not HTTP login is to prevent automated services from logging in i.e. it is a Turing test. Login based on â€œnon standardâ€ HTTP authentication and cookies are for this reason much safer. Session cookies are also needed by digest authentication for nonce counting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is most likely the less intelligent I have read in a long time. The reason sites use form based login and not HTTP login is to prevent automated services from logging in i.e. it is a Turing test. Login based on â€œnon standardâ€ HTTP authentication and cookies are for this reason much safer. Session cookies are also needed by digest authentication for nonce counting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-7268</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-7268</guid>
		<description>I really do not trust the solutions the site offers, especially when it self describes them:

"The solutions presented here use only voodoo, so sacrifice your chickens and let's go!"

I believe that your RSS Reader is the limiting factor.  I have personally written several web crawlers that were able to login and accept a cookie for authentication.

"Weâ€™ve known they are used to track users and violate privacy."  This is not an issue with the technology.  There is nothing in Cookies that allows people to "gather" information that they did not already have about you.  This kind of FUD really chaps my hide.  Until you are able to demonstrate, and I mean a working world-class application like Amazon, the same kind of personalization with at least the same level of security, don't go whining about cookies.

Anyone can complain, few can offer solutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really do not trust the solutions the site offers, especially when it self describes them:</p>
<p>&#8220;The solutions presented here use only voodoo, so sacrifice your chickens and let&#8217;s go!&#8221;</p>
<p>I believe that your RSS Reader is the limiting factor.  I have personally written several web crawlers that were able to login and accept a cookie for authentication.</p>
<p>&#8220;Weâ€™ve known they are used to track users and violate privacy.&#8221;  This is not an issue with the technology.  There is nothing in Cookies that allows people to &#8220;gather&#8221; information that they did not already have about you.  This kind of FUD really chaps my hide.  Until you are able to demonstrate, and I mean a working world-class application like Amazon, the same kind of personalization with at least the same level of security, don&#8217;t go whining about cookies.</p>
<p>Anyone can complain, few can offer solutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Berend de Boer</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-2953</link>
		<dc:creator>Berend de Boer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-2953</guid>
		<description>moe, all not true: http://www.pobox.com/~berend/rest/authentication.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>moe, all not true: <a href="http://www.pobox.com/~berend/rest/authentication.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pobox.com/~berend/rest/authentication.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moe</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-1696</link>
		<dc:creator>moe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/web/why-cookies-are-bad-for-you-3/#comment-1696</guid>
		<description>Nice call, unfortunately there are a few problems with HTTP authentication.

1. Browsers tend to offer "save login/password" checkboxes and users tend to "forget"
    unchecking them which results in user passwords being permanently saved on
    machines where they don't belong.

2. Browsers remember the HTTP auth credentials at least until all browser windows
    (not only the current one) are closed. Therefor...

3. It's quite tricky to implement a "logout-button" and there is no clean way to do it.
    The common hack is to assign each user a personal realm which is fugly and fragile,
    to say the least.

4. HTTP Simple Auth sends your login/password in the clear *on every request*.
    DIGEST auth is tricky to implement and is not supported by all browsers and especially
    not by all feed readers etc.

The only way to preserve your sanity is to offer both. Have the regular cookie/rewrite sessions for your users. Additionally do support digest auth (with fallback to simple auth) for those
feed readers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice call, unfortunately there are a few problems with HTTP authentication.</p>
<p>1. Browsers tend to offer &#8220;save login/password&#8221; checkboxes and users tend to &#8220;forget&#8221;<br />
    unchecking them which results in user passwords being permanently saved on<br />
    machines where they don&#8217;t belong.</p>
<p>2. Browsers remember the HTTP auth credentials at least until all browser windows<br />
    (not only the current one) are closed. Therefor&#8230;</p>
<p>3. It&#8217;s quite tricky to implement a &#8220;logout-button&#8221; and there is no clean way to do it.<br />
    The common hack is to assign each user a personal realm which is fugly and fragile,<br />
    to say the least.</p>
<p>4. HTTP Simple Auth sends your login/password in the clear *on every request*.<br />
    DIGEST auth is tricky to implement and is not supported by all browsers and especially<br />
    not by all feed readers etc.</p>
<p>The only way to preserve your sanity is to offer both. Have the regular cookie/rewrite sessions for your users. Additionally do support digest auth (with fallback to simple auth) for those<br />
feed readers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
