Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Adding signing (and signed cookies) to Django core
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Marty Alchin  
View profile  
 More options Sep 24 2009, 3:41 pm
From: Marty Alchin <gulop...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:41:59 -0400
Local: Thurs, Sep 24 2009 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: Adding signing (and signed cookies) to Django core

> Also, does the name of a cookie factor into the cookie length limits?
> My reading of RFC 2109 says yes, but it'd be worth verifying, since it
> would cut down on the usable value space. With your compressed base64
> stuff, that's not as big of a problem, but still something to look
> into.

Also, just to throw this out there for the sake of compleness: could
the signature be stored under a separate name, rather than being
bundled with the original cookie itself?

Set-Cookie: key=value
Set-Cookie: key__Xsignature=signature_string

It seems like this could address a couple issues at once.

* There's a clear distinction between signed and unsigned cookies, so
request.COOKIES can be populated with only valid cookies

* The key/value pair remains unchanged, so things like Google
Analytics can happily ignore the signature if it was applied
unnecessarily (middleware is back on the table!)

Since there may be an upper limit on the number of allowed cookies,
though, doubling the number of cookies could present some very real
problems. RFC 2109 recommends allowing at least 20 cookies per domain
name, and it looks like at least Microsoft takes that to be a
maximum,[1] so it could present very real problems (middleware is back
off the table!).

I'm not sure how many cookies people use on a regular basis, and this
would only be for explicitly signed cookies, so maybe it'd be okay,
but it's flirting dangerously close to being completely unworkable.
Worse yet, it doesn't look like there's any predictable way to know
which cookies would get lost in the event of having too many, so this
may end up causing some very weird application errors if things go
wrong.

At least now it's been recorded for future reference. (Hello, future
me, looking up information on why we did things the way we did! Do we
have flying cars yet?)

-Gul

[1] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306070


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.