this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
245 points (95.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

36876 readers
83 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

...so allow...either?

What's so hard about checking two headers (Authorization: and Cookie:) for the authtoken?

[–] immortaly007@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's a security thing. The HttpOnly cookie can't be stolen using XSS or something like that, while a bearer token must be stored somewhere where javascript can see it.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago

That's assuming the client wants to make a web app. They may need to connect something else to that API.

It's perfectly normal to be able to cater to more authentication scenarios than "web app logging in directly to the target API and using its cookies".

If they want to make a web app they should use the cookie mechanism but ultimately each client app is responsible for how it secures its access.

[–] gornius@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Then again, cookie auth is vulnerable to CSRF. Pick your poison.

Although CSRF protection just adds a minor inconvenience, while there is never a guarantee your code is XSS vulnerability free.