Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2016


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 113102
interpreted = N
texte = 690 > On another side, I am baffled to see how some users jumped into > this opportunity to claim [session] is "unreliable" I never said [session] is unreliable. But within the context of use as a unique way to identify a browser, I absolutely said that [BrowserID] is unreliable -- and I said it not only based on Tom's failed test results, but also on the clear warning posted in the WSC online docs: > A word or warning: In certain rare cases, it is possible to > find two identicals browser "fingerprint" or BrowserID. It is > not advised to do visitor recognition based only on Browser ID Personally I believe we are smart enough to make our own decisions about the viability of [BrowserID] for a particular use -- if you will just explain how it works and what data bits are used to generate it. But the only attempted explanation I've ever seen is a vague reference to a browser "fingerprint" or "footprint" -- which means nothing to me. I already know how to uniquely identify browsers using cookies, and I've been doing it successfully for years now. This is one reason why I'll stick with something I know and understand UNTIL something that's truly better comes along. Sure, I would love to find an easier way, but if a supposedly better solution exists I cannot in good conscience adopt it until I understand exactly how it works, and why it might NOT work in certain situations. Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Administration --------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us . Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (dale 2016)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (WebDNA Development 2016)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (dale 2016)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Kenneth Grome 2016)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Kenneth Grome 2016)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Kenneth Grome 2016)
  10. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Donovan Brooke 2016)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Tom Duke 2016)
  12. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  13. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Donovan Brooke 2016)
  14. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Kenneth Grome 2016)
  15. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Tom Duke 2016)
  16. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Michael Davis 2016)
  17. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  18. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  19. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a (Kenneth Grome 2016)
  20. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  21. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  22. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Donovan Brooke 2016)
  23. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (Tom Duke 2016)
  24. Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2016)
  25. [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a sessions.db? (dale 2016)
690 > On another side, I am baffled to see how some users jumped into > this opportunity to claim [session] is "unreliable" I never said [session] is unreliable. But within the context of use as a unique way to identify a browser, I absolutely said that [BrowserID] is unreliable -- and I said it not only based on Tom's failed test results, but also on the clear warning posted in the WSC online docs: > A word or warning: In certain rare cases, it is possible to > find two identicals browser "fingerprint" or BrowserID. It is > not advised to do visitor recognition based only on Browser ID Personally I believe we are smart enough to make our own decisions about the viability of [BrowserID] for a particular use -- if you will just explain how it works and what data bits are used to generate it. But the only attempted explanation I've ever seen is a vague reference to a browser "fingerprint" or "footprint" -- which means nothing to me. I already know how to uniquely identify browsers using cookies, and I've been doing it successfully for years now. This is one reason why I'll stick with something I know and understand UNTIL something that's truly better comes along. Sure, I would love to find an easier way, but if a supposedly better solution exists I cannot in good conscience adopt it until I understand exactly how it works, and why it might NOT work in certain situations. Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Administration --------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us . Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

More Applescript (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997) Buying sans cart (1997) Multiple prices (1997) WebCat2b12plugin - [search] is broken ... not! (1997) WebCatalog and WebMerchant reviewed by InfoWorld (1997) Emailer setup (1997) no template caching (1997) ShowNext context limited to 500 hits? (2000) How far do [showif]s go? (1997) taxTotal, grandTotal (1997) WebCat2_Mac RETURNs in .db (1997) OT: Forcing a header when printing web pages (2002) is sku a REQUIRED field on NT (1997) FORMS: Returning a specific page (1997) Frames and WebCat (1997) Signal Raised Error (Part II) (1997) [WebDNA] Captcha question (and free code) (2009) Questions To Answer (1997) Re:[ShowIf] and empty fields (1997)