This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 24, 2019. It is now read-only.
Use of secure attribute in cookies #34
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jehiah
force-pushed
the
secure_cookies_34
branch
from
8c26581 to
5859214
Compare
…ly and expire flags
jehiah
force-pushed
the
secure_cookies_34
branch
from
5859214 to
bc26835
Compare
|
Thanks @LukeHandle for opening this issue and @ddidd (for the first version of this commit which i started with) |
jehiah
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2014
Use of secure attribute in cookies
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I see at Line 191 of oauthproxy.go the question is raised of whether to use secure cookies if the X-Scheme is https (set the proxy header in nginx).
While this may be a good idea in the long run, in the short term, would it be better to decrease the chance of MITM attacks and set default of secure until a dynamic solution is implemented?
I understand this would cause incompatibility with those using this over HTTP only, though if they are I assume they have a very good reason and would be able to manually build it with the flag not set?
Would it be better to the increase the default security for the majority of deployments vs. compatibility in certain edge case uses.