- From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:41:13 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
On Feb 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:50 -0800, ashok malhotra wrote: >> Hi Larry: >> This is useful. >> Non-public URIs provide a weak level of security that is held to be >> adequate for some usecases. >> I wonder if there is disagreement with the above statement. > > I disagree. And in my previous email, I neglected to mention that I, too, disagree with that statement. > > The unguessable URI pattern can be made about as secure as you like; > in particular, as secure or more secure than passwords+cookies. Yes, I believe that to be true too - apart from the case where a URI may end up being transmitted to another site "automatically" by means of the Referer HTTP header. Regards, - johnk
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 15:41:51 UTC