Geoffrey Young wrote:
what if you get nonce="", is that good enough? would it be more correct
to check:

qr/nonce="[^"]+"/,


yeah, I thought about that.  but then I thought that I'm not so sure that I
care that nonce is implemented properly as I am that it appears at all -
having a nonce field indicates that ap_note_digest_auth_failure was called,
while checking the nonce value indicates that it was called and the
underlying implementation is implementing a correct nonce scheme.

as an aside, I don't see anything in the RFCs that indicate that nonce="" is
invalid - 2617 hints that some nonce choices are better than others, but I'm
not entirely certain that it can't be just an empty string and be RFC
compliant.  from a technical standpoint it certainly can be - the digest
mechanism would compute the same digest so long as both parties agreed to
use "" as the nonce.  so I guess I'm saying that I don't know whether
nonce="" is valid or not, but I might think so.

anyway, either way is fine with me - I don't feel strongly one way or the
other so feel free to change it to the above regex if you like, since it
would certainly be odd to find nonce="" which would indicate that something
may have changed over in mod_auth_digest.c.

Sure, I haven't read the RFC so if that's what it says, then let's keep it as is. Thanks for checkingt that, Geoff.



-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to