3 ms·

> Therefore: When you generate a request that spoofs the obscure user agent string, it is authorized only if you were also authorized to use the obscure agent.

by a1369209993 5y ago

> Therefore: When you generate a request that spoofs the obscure user agent string, it is authorized only if you were also authorized to use the obscure agent. The string is a secret like any other, even if it's a secret shared by the entire group of people who were provided with the obscure agent. "it is authorized if and only if you were also authorized", but otherwise yes, exactly.

hunter2_ 5y ago
I originally wrote something like that, but removed it to fix wordiness. There's a difference?
- a1369209993 5y ago
  | A | B |A-only-if-B|A-if-and-only-if-B| |false|false| true | true | |false|true | TRUE | FALSE | |true |false| false | false | |true |true | true | true | Arguably it's nitpicking (the unmodified statement is true, just less precise), but I like to say "exactly" when people rephase my statements in a more/differently clear way than I managed to, and don't like to say false things.
  - hunter2_ 5y ago
    I think your matrix depicts that [the hypothetical scenario where a person is unauthorized to spoof the obscure UA string, but is authorized to use the obscure agent] is allowed when saying "only if" but is not allowed when saying "if and only if" -- if I'm reading it properly. If so, and only if so, then I disagree with you; to me, the "if and" does absolutely nothing but add wordiness without changing meaning. However, if the columns of your matrix were modified to compare "if" versus "[if and] only if" (where square brackets represent an optional component that does absolutely nothing), I'd agree with the logic, being analogous to the difference between OR and XOR (for the boolean sense of OR, not the English sense which is akin to XOR).
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > if I'm reading it properly. And now I'm not sure I'm not the one who isn't reading things properly. (And that sentence probably doesn't help matters.) I'll point to (the "only if" part of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Distinction_from_"if"_and_"only_if" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Distinction_fro..., which I think agrees with me and disagrees with you, assuming I'm not misreading one or both.

hunter2_ 5y ago

I originally wrote something like that, but removed it to fix wordiness. There's a difference?

a1369209993 5y ago
| A | B |A-only-if-B|A-if-and-only-if-B| |false|false| true | true | |false|true | TRUE | FALSE | |true |false| false | false | |true |true | true | true | Arguably it's nitpicking (the unmodified statement is true, just less precise), but I like to say "exactly" when people rephase my statements in a more/differently clear way than I managed to, and don't like to say false things.
- hunter2_ 5y ago
  I think your matrix depicts that [the hypothetical scenario where a person is unauthorized to spoof the obscure UA string, but is authorized to use the obscure agent] is allowed when saying "only if" but is not allowed when saying "if and only if" -- if I'm reading it properly. If so, and only if so, then I disagree with you; to me, the "if and" does absolutely nothing but add wordiness without changing meaning. However, if the columns of your matrix were modified to compare "if" versus "[if and] only if" (where square brackets represent an optional component that does absolutely nothing), I'd agree with the logic, being analogous to the difference between OR and XOR (for the boolean sense of OR, not the English sense which is akin to XOR).
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > if I'm reading it properly. And now I'm not sure I'm not the one who isn't reading things properly. (And that sentence probably doesn't help matters.) I'll point to (the "only if" part of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Distinction_from_"if"_and_"only_if" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Distinction_fro..., which I think agrees with me and disagrees with you, assuming I'm not misreading one or both.