Without SSL forget about the authentication part. I  can do man in the
middle attacks (provided I can get in the middle), replay attacks and hell I
can just watch what you do and get all of the information I need.  Do I need
special tools?  Perhaps, but not if I'm using Linux, tcpdump should do the
trick.

It depends, do you want some degree of security or just "look secure".

A big problem with Basic is that you have NO control over the scope of the
session.  You have *no* idea how long the browser will cache the
authentication tokens.  Besides the lameness of a spec that defines login
but not logout. .  I mean its just silly.

-Andy

> From: Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing
> list."<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
> To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Juglist] Re: HTTP authentication -- was too few warnings among
> us about bad code
> 
> 
> Apart from being able to integrate the login into the page, what then is
> the advantage of Form Auth over Basic?
> 
> Both are basically crap without SSL. The only advantage I can think of for
> Form Auth are that the login process can be over SSL, but then it can move
> out of SSL and rely on Session memory. Which as the session id is in
> either a cookie or the url's would be insecure, though only insecure in a
> session's lifetime.
> 
> Useful for big sites where everything in SSL might be a cpu issue, but
> generally it could all just stay in SSL, so why not just use Basic?
> 
> Just wondering. I find that the choice is often driven by how the business
> people want it to look.
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Andrew Oliver wrote:
> 
>> Form Authentication with SSL works acceptably.  Actually password anything
>> isn't really that secure.  However Form/SSL is acceptable for most apps.
>> You can't have anything more than mimic security without encryption.  The
>> session is keyed to a token.  If its not encrypted, I can intercept it and
>> probably change your password or at least have fun for a session.
>> 
>> 
>> -andy
>> 
>>> From: "Richard O. Hammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing
>>> list."<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:50:14 -0400
>>> To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list."<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Subject: [Juglist] Re: HTTP authentication -- was too few warnings among us
>>> about bad code
>>> 
>>> Hugh Allen wrote:
>>>>     * HTTP basic authentication
>>>>     * Form-based authentication
>>>> * Client-certificate authentication
>>> 
>>> I had lumped HTTP Basic authentication together with FORM
>>> authentication, and meant both of them when I wrote about "HTTP
>>> authentication" in my last post.  I was thinking that form based
>>> authentication was a kind of HTTP authentication, but I may be
>>> mistaken about that.  Anyhow, form-based authentication is what I have
>>> recently found to have enough gotchas to drive me to look for better,
>>> maybe to write my own.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It appears that Form-based authentication, when combined with SSL, is
>>>> flexible and does not expose passwords or messages in plain text.
>>> 
>>> I agree.  It APPEARS decent.  But how often is it actually used in
>>> serious work?
>>> 
>>>> ... This
>>>> is what I plan to use for my production environment, but I haven't
>>>> gotten the SSL cert yet.
>>> 
>>> Based upon my limited experience, I warn you against form based
>>> authentication.  The SSL part has worked without difficulty for me,
>>> however.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the links.
>>> 
>>> Rich Hammer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Juglist mailing list
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Juglist mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Juglist mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org


_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org

Reply via email to