Article View: comp.sys.acorn.networking
Article #534Re: Should I use a proxy to access Clan pages?
From: CM203 Lecturers
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 00:00
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 00:00
44 lines
2989 bytes
2989 bytes
In <19950814.131518.33@tquest.demon.co.uk> josh@tquest.demon.co.uk (Joshua Goodall) writes: >In article <19950813.010124.70@atlas.co.uk>, > rsargeant@atlas.co.uk (you) wrote: >> A little dilemma... Can someone enlighten me on this matter? >> >> If I am using a proxy service such as that at http://www.demon.co.uk:8080 and >> access Clan/private pages, can I be sure that I will not be authorizing pages >> for users after me? (Perhaps that should be in the Acorn WWW site FAQ...) >IIRC ArcWeb GETs the page, is told that 'authentication is required' (a >401 response) in the HTTP header, gets said auth. from user, and >re-requests the document *including* the authentication information. >Assuming the auth-scheme is trapdoor (e.g. MD5) and that no-one in >your data-hop-path is listening in, you should be able to rest easy. >However I quote from <draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-00.txt>: I think that the original point was that www.demon.co.uk would actually cache the document when it comes back for him and the question was, would this cached copy be presented to anyone else who requested that document through the proxy. The answer is no it wouldn't, although if you should request it again you will get the cached copy. The reason for this is that the some of the client sent headers are stored with the cached copy - this includes things like the Accept: headers and some of the server headers such as the WWW-Authenticate header. It is *possible* for the proxy to perform the authentication checking (providing the realm method is Basic) since it's just a simple BASE64 transformation, so if someone requests the document without sending the correct header, the proxy can return the 401 Authorization Needed response AND subsequently supply the document when a matching Authorization header is presented. However, I don't believe that the current cacheing servers (CERN & Netscape Proxy Server) do this kind of trickery. It is certainly dodgy and is the subject of ongoing discussion in W3C circles. There is a lot of 'frank exchanges of views' :-) -- Stewart Brodie S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton http://dsse.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ http://delenn.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<40ppl1$1ql@davinci.ecs.soton.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<19950813.010124.70@atlas.co.uk> <19950814.131518.33@tquest.demon.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 114044,3d8e329fbfa1a382 X-Google-Attributes: gid114044,public X-Google-Thread: 11173c,3d8e329fbfa1a382 X-Google-Attributes: gid11173c,public From: cm203l@ecs.soton.ac.uk (CM203 Lecturers) Subject: Re: Should I use a proxy to access Clan pages? Date: 1995/08/15 Message-ID: <40ppl1$1ql@davinci.ecs.soton.ac.uk> X-Deja-AN: 108138652 references: <19950813.010124.70@atlas.co.uk> <19950814.131518.33@tquest.demon.co.uk> organization: Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton reply-to: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.networking,demon.ip.support.archimedes