Well, I wrote an article for the upcoming FAQU on this very topic if that
helps . . . I'll try to get a blog post up, but don't want to beat my own
article to the punch!

Best Wishes,
Peter


On 12/13/07 1:52 AM, "Barry Beattie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Peter,
> 
> you wouldn't happen to have a blog entry or two (or recommend such)
> on this, would y' now? by chance, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:41 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>  We use a taken based approach. +1 for password with every request not being
>> an ideal approach, and you've got to look out for sessions with web
>> services. I'm not sure that they will be available. As for cookies, we
>> decided it'd be easier for us (and our partners) to just pass a parameter
>> explicitly rather than to have to write the code to work with cookies.
>> 
>>  Our general approach is:
>>  - Client calls authenticate method ­ authenticate(User, Pass)
>>  - Method returns either a token or an error code based on API
>>  - Client calls any other method, one of the required parameters is the
>> token
>>  - All methods validate the token and either return an appropriate error
>> code (invalid, expired, malformed, etc) as per API or go ahead and return
>> the expected value.
>> 
>>  Best Wishes,
>>  Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  On 12/13/07 12:51 AM, "Zac Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> passing the password in every request just feels bad, everything else aside
>> 
>>  tokens work well in my experience, cookies and tokens are pretty much the
>> same idea
>>  slightly differently executed...
>> 
>>  i think in terms of interoperability tokens are the best
>> 
>>  z
>> 
>>  On Dec 13, 2007 4:39 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>>  We are just embarking on a WebServices project and I would like some
>> opinion on the best way to run authentication for it.
>> 
>>  I am looking for opinion on each of the following methods with regards to
>> the ease it takes to integrate to it from another language or CF. We could
>> have .NET, Java etc connecting to it so we need something that is secure,
>> but still straight forward for others to integrate with quickly.
>> 
>>  As far as I know there would be 3 ways to handle the authentication on a
>> high level, Cookie/session, custom token, auth on every request. I have done
>> this before, but never sought opinion from the outside world.
>> 
>>  My thoughts are as follows:
>> 
>>  - Cookies: can be used to save data provided by CF to refer back to session
>> or client variables just the same way as a browser session. OK, but I
>> understand that the cookie values would be written into the SOAP header.
>> This would also involve extra programming on the consumer side.
>>  Pro: CF handles timeouts etc simply via the application.cfc, only login
>> once
>>  Con: extra coding for consumer to turn around headers each request
>> 
>>  - Custom token
>>  Pro: only lookup user once
>>  Con: token changes on each request to update timestamp. Custom code to work
>> out timeouts and if still logged in etc.
>> 
>>  - Pass username / password on each request:
>>  Pro: no persistent data, no complications of passing specific variables
>> back and forth
>>  Con: have to pass probably more data than required, more processing than
>> required as will have to look up user on every request.
>> 
>>  1) Do any of these require more work for, say, a Java or .NET developer to
>> consume than another one?
>>  2) Is passing the usr/pwd on every request considered unsecure? (This will
>> run over SSL exclusively).
>>  3) Is there best practice in the CF world for this? If so is it one of
>> these methods or something I missed?
>> 
>>  Thanks all!
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> > 




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to