• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:08:22 +0000
• Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20040108115451.GP31886@m...>
• References: <20040108000125.GI31886@m...> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0401072052010.11874-100000@s...> <20040108115451.GP31886@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030704 Debian/1.4-1

John Cowan wrote:

> I reread RFC 2617 last night, and it does seem to me that although it
> is very properly self-deprecating about the level of security provided
> by digest authentication, it really does provide decent authentication
> (though not integrity protection or, of course, confidentiality)

Yes, Digest auth is pretty good - it'd be great if it was implemented 
widely enough to actually be safely usable, though :-(

ABS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call forParticipation
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Next by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call forParticipation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread