Subject:
|
Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:40:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
124 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> How about if durring sign-up there were an additional field for a "code
> word" or "password" if you are more comfortable with that term although I
> don't think this is a complicated as a "password". In this case if that
> field were left blank things would work as they do today and people could
> post using a news-reader or the web interface. If something were entered
> however this value would be stored in the cookie and would be needed to
> post so if someone were to use a different PC (that didn't already have a
> cookie) they would have to enter this "code word" as well in order to post.
I think you might be onto something there. Ignoring for the moment the
issues of someone possibly wanting to change their code word later or
needing their memory refreshed, what you're suggesting is quite feasable.
> Of course this would require posting via the web interface but I think
> your solution also had this requirement.
Hmm, if the code word was sent via a custom NNTP header, and then stripped
after verification but before injecting the article, then it could also work
via NNTP for newsreaders that support writing in custom headers. The danger
there though is if someone gets cc'd via email on a posting -- then the
headers would be exposed. So that's not a good idea, even though it -could-
work if someone was very careful. But we don't want people to have to be
quite that careful, because cc'ing people via email is relatively common.
> This would also not deal with
> the issue of someone using Brad's PC and posting as Brad but I think that
> is the least problematic of all the problems. It seems to me that the big
> issue is someone posting from their computer as Brad, as was demonstraited
> earlier.
Yup, that's the big one.
> The other benifit of using this type of approach would be that membership
> would not be required.
Avoiding the membership requirement would be nice. Not having to write a
whole new password/passcode subsytem for non-members would also be nice. :-)
> This may be oversimplified but it was a thought and I am sure that you
> (Todd) being the expert here has a much clearer view of the situation and
> the solutions then I would.
I think it's definitely worth considering...thanks for the suggestion.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
