<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Creating a Persistent Login Mechanism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jeremycook.ca/2010/03/28/creating-a-persistent-login-mechanism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jeremycook.ca/2010/03/28/creating-a-persistent-login-mechanism/</link>
	<description>Random musings on web development and PHP</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:22:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Cook</title>
		<link>http://jeremycook.ca/2010/03/28/creating-a-persistent-login-mechanism/comment-page-1/#comment-4599</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Cook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jeremycook.ca/?p=73#comment-4599</guid>
		<description>Good point and to be totally truthful I&#039;m not entirely sure why I suggested two fields. In my defense I wrote that quite a while ago.. The only reason for the two random fields is that it obfusticates things a little more. If an attacker was able to observe a number of cookies they might be able to work out that the ones called &#039;pl&#039; have a common purpose. However, that would only provide a negligible benefit. It looks like one db field would be quite enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point and to be totally truthful I&#8217;m not entirely sure why I suggested two fields. In my defense I wrote that quite a while ago.. The only reason for the two random fields is that it obfusticates things a little more. If an attacker was able to observe a number of cookies they might be able to work out that the ones called &#8216;pl&#8217; have a common purpose. However, that would only provide a negligible benefit. It looks like one db field would be quite enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://jeremycook.ca/2010/03/28/creating-a-persistent-login-mechanism/comment-page-1/#comment-4575</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jeremycook.ca/?p=73#comment-4575</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the article, useful pointers, I&#039;m building something very similar.

Any reason you don&#039;t just do something like

cookieName=&quot;pl&quot; (for persisted login)
cookieValue=&quot;BigRandomGarbagesdffjkshjdifhioshdfijsdfjisdjfsdf&quot;

I can&#039;t see any good reason for two DB fields, could you explain your reasoning a bit more?

Thanks,

Craig</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the article, useful pointers, I&#8217;m building something very similar.</p>
<p>Any reason you don&#8217;t just do something like</p>
<p>cookieName=&#8221;pl&#8221; (for persisted login)<br />
cookieValue=&#8221;BigRandomGarbagesdffjkshjdifhioshdfijsdfjisdjfsdf&#8221;</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see any good reason for two DB fields, could you explain your reasoning a bit more?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

