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:
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)