Re: [WebDNA] User sessions - cookies only or cookies and a
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2016
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 113092
interpreted = N
texte = 680 > I have just been playing around with the [session] tag. > > It looks like the same browserID was generated for sessions > created by Safari, Chrome and Firefox. Am I missing something > here, should there not be a different browserID for different > browsers? BrowserID us unreliable for anything related to sessions: > "A word of warning: In certain rare cases, it is possible to > find two identicals browser "fingerprint" or BrowserID. It is > not advised to do visitor recognition based only on Browser > ID." Your test is not a rare case but it failed 100% of the time, so my conclusion is that it's not what it's promoted to be. I have other questions about this undocumented or poorly documented tag: Why does it fail in your simple test? What does the [BrowserID] value consist of, SPECIFICALLY? How is it created? How does it ACTUALLY work ... or doesn't it? Why is is so vaguely described in the docs? Just don't bother with it. Cookies are far more useful and reliable. Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Administration --------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us .
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
680 > I have just been playing around with the [session] tag. > > It looks like the same browserID was generated for sessions > created by Safari, Chrome and Firefox. Am I missing something > here, should there not be a different browserID for different > browsers? BrowserID us unreliable for anything related to sessions: > "A word of warning: In certain rare cases, it is possible to > find two identicals browser "fingerprint" or BrowserID. It is > not advised to do visitor recognition based only on Browser > ID." Your test is not a rare case but it failed 100% of the time, so my conclusion is that it's not what it's promoted to be. I have other questions about this undocumented or poorly documented tag: Why does it fail in your simple test? What does the [BrowserID] value consist of, SPECIFICALLY? How is it created? How does it ACTUALLY work ... or doesn't it? Why is is so vaguely described in the docs? Just don't bother with it. Cookies are far more useful and reliable. Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Administration --------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us .
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
japanese characters (1997)
vars (2000)
[WebDNA] Text box delimiter (2009)
All choices on IE different than Netscape (1997)
Frames and WebCat (1997)
[WebDNA] LowRam (2012)
Answer: WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997)
Emailer again & again (1997)
Re:ListFields and [name] (1997)
Rams SuperBowl Champs (2000)
Help! WebCat install problems... (2000)
[subtotal] and others (1997)
Almost a there but..bye bye NetCloak (1997)
OSX 10.2.6/iTools 7.0/WebDNA 5.0 installation (2003)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
Error Lob.db records error message not name (1997)
email program problem (1998)
PCS Frames (1997)
Erotic Sites (1997)