4 ms·
why do we assume automatically that this is a bad thing? it all depends how it is used. I for one see many positive uses for something like this.
by lingben 13y ago
why do we assume automatically that this is a bad thing? it all depends how it is used. I for one see many positive uses for something like this.
- lucb1e 13y agoCan you give an example of a positive use for this, that is better than a cookie?
- leokun 13y agoIt saves bandwidth and leads to faster website loading. A cookie is transported with every request. This is why sites use cookie free domains for static content. If etags were used instead a separate domain wouldn't be necessary. It's more secure. If identifying session data is not accessible to JavaScript, it makes a site more secure from XSS attacks.
- nsmartt 13y ago> It's more secure. If identifying session data is not accessible to JavaScript, it makes a site more secure from XSS attacks. HTTPOnly should take care of this.
- leokun 13y agoIt depends, HTTPOnly cookies are still accessible to JavaScript in some conditions, like those using an Android browser: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/HttpOnly#Browsers_Supporting_HttpOnly https://www.owasp.org/index.php/HttpOnly#Browsers_Supporting...
- jorangreef 13y agoI have been working on a two-factor authentication system. It needs a cookie to keep the user from re-authenticating every time. For one particular user on Chrome, this cookie is getting cleared everyday and they're not sure how to fix it on their side. This could help restore the cookie without requiring needlessly a second factor.
- lingben 13y agoaffiliate tracking, analytics, etc.