<?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: New version of the OpenID component</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/</link>
	<description>baking cakes with CakePHP</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:27:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cakebaker</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-128034</link>
		<dc:creator>cakebaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 13:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-128034</guid>
		<description>@Dave: You are welcome!

@Ben: Well, PHP4 is officially dead and so it doesn&#039;t make much sense to support it anymore. However, feel free to grab the source from &lt;a href=&quot;http://github.com/cakebaker/openid-component&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GitHub&lt;/a&gt; and modify it accordingly, if you need the component in a PHP4 environment.

Yes, CakePHP includes all the needed database access functionality, and I considered to use this functionality. However, in the end it was more pragmatic to use what&#039;s already available in the OpenID lib than to write my own CakeMySQLStore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Dave: You are welcome!</p>
<p>@Ben: Well, PHP4 is officially dead and so it doesn&#8217;t make much sense to support it anymore. However, feel free to grab the source from <a href="http://github.com/cakebaker/openid-component" rel="nofollow">GitHub</a> and modify it accordingly, if you need the component in a PHP4 environment.</p>
<p>Yes, CakePHP includes all the needed database access functionality, and I considered to use this functionality. However, in the end it was more pragmatic to use what&#8217;s already available in the OpenID lib than to write my own CakeMySQLStore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr-Yellow</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-127918</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr-Yellow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 06:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-127918</guid>
		<description>No need for PEAR DB package as CakePHP includes all the needed database access with a rewrite of the component to use what is already available.

-Ben</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No need for PEAR DB package as CakePHP includes all the needed database access with a rewrite of the component to use what is already available.</p>
<p>-Ben</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr-Yellow</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-127917</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr-Yellow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 06:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-127917</guid>
		<description>Can&#039;t see any reason why PHP5 would be needed.

The OpenID lib is PHP4.

The OpenID CakePHP component is only a small amount of code to change back to PHP4.

No reason for PHP5 except to make the script incompatible with most servers.

-Ben</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t see any reason why PHP5 would be needed.</p>
<p>The OpenID lib is PHP4.</p>
<p>The OpenID CakePHP component is only a small amount of code to change back to PHP4.</p>
<p>No reason for PHP5 except to make the script incompatible with most servers.</p>
<p>-Ben</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-127591</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 17:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-127591</guid>
		<description>Awesome. This worked flawlessly. Now my apps can be openid enabled. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awesome. This worked flawlessly. Now my apps can be openid enabled. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cakebaker</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-122126</link>
		<dc:creator>cakebaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-122126</guid>
		<description>@Arne: Thanks for your comment!

Well, as you quoted from the spec, &quot;Relying Parties MUST differentiate between URL Identifiers that have different schemes.&quot;. This means, you violate the spec if you would modify the behavior of Consumer.php (or the OpenID component) to treat https://example.com and http://example.com as the same identifier. 

So, my recommendation is to keep it like it is and to follow the spec ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Arne: Thanks for your comment!</p>
<p>Well, as you quoted from the spec, &#8220;Relying Parties MUST differentiate between URL Identifiers that have different schemes.&#8221;. This means, you violate the spec if you would modify the behavior of Consumer.php (or the OpenID component) to treat <a href="https://example.com" rel="nofollow">https://example.com</a> and <a href="http://example.com" rel="nofollow">http://example.com</a> as the same identifier. </p>
<p>So, my recommendation is to keep it like it is and to follow the spec ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arne Diekmann</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-121760</link>
		<dc:creator>Arne Diekmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-121760</guid>
		<description>Hey mister Cakebaker,

The plugin is running very smoothly for me, thanks for that! There is only one thing I kept wondering about: When I enter my OpenID preceeded by &quot;https://&quot; the response does not have the same identiy_url compared to entering the OpenID with &quot;http://&quot;. 

This is of course totally correct according to the OpenID Specs and my first idea was to just store the identity_url for a user with the protocol stripped and compare that with the identy_url returned by the authentication process (with the protocol stripped also) and thus making the different identity-urls map to the same user, but the specs also stated that »Relying Parties MUST differentiate between URL Identifiers that have different schemes. When end user input is processed into a URL, it is processed into a HTTP URL. If the same end user controls the same URL, differing only by scheme, and it is desired that the Identifier be the HTTPS URL, it is RECOMMENDED that a redirect be issued from the HTTP URL to the HTTPS URL. Because the HTTP and HTTPS URLs are not equivalent and the Identifier that is used is the URL after following redirects, there is no foreseen reduction in security when using this scheme. If an attacker could gain control of the HTTP URL, it would have no effect on the HTTPS URL, since the HTTP URL is not ever used as an Identifier except to initiate the discovery process.« (http://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0.html#anchor45)

Is this something to be done in the Consumer.php or is there a way to accomplish just that with your plugin the easy way? If not I&#039;ll have to go by the stripping-approach or try to find out wether the OpenID library can be taught to do that. Anyway any hint in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!

Greetings,
Caffeine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey mister Cakebaker,</p>
<p>The plugin is running very smoothly for me, thanks for that! There is only one thing I kept wondering about: When I enter my OpenID preceeded by &#8220;https://&#8221; the response does not have the same identiy_url compared to entering the OpenID with &#8220;http://&#8221;. </p>
<p>This is of course totally correct according to the OpenID Specs and my first idea was to just store the identity_url for a user with the protocol stripped and compare that with the identy_url returned by the authentication process (with the protocol stripped also) and thus making the different identity-urls map to the same user, but the specs also stated that »Relying Parties MUST differentiate between URL Identifiers that have different schemes. When end user input is processed into a URL, it is processed into a HTTP URL. If the same end user controls the same URL, differing only by scheme, and it is desired that the Identifier be the HTTPS URL, it is RECOMMENDED that a redirect be issued from the HTTP URL to the HTTPS URL. Because the HTTP and HTTPS URLs are not equivalent and the Identifier that is used is the URL after following redirects, there is no foreseen reduction in security when using this scheme. If an attacker could gain control of the HTTP URL, it would have no effect on the HTTPS URL, since the HTTP URL is not ever used as an Identifier except to initiate the discovery process.« (<a href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0.html#anchor45" rel="nofollow">http://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0.html#anchor45</a>)</p>
<p>Is this something to be done in the Consumer.php or is there a way to accomplish just that with your plugin the easy way? If not I&#8217;ll have to go by the stripping-approach or try to find out wether the OpenID library can be taught to do that. Anyway any hint in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!</p>
<p>Greetings,<br />
Caffeine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cakebaker</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-121335</link>
		<dc:creator>cakebaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-121335</guid>
		<description>@James: Ah, yes, that&#039;s the hardcore approach ;-) 

Anyway, I hope it works fine now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@James: Ah, yes, that&#8217;s the hardcore approach ;-) </p>
<p>Anyway, I hope it works fine now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Rickard</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-121278</link>
		<dc:creator>James Rickard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:14:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-121278</guid>
		<description>@cakebaker : Thanks heaps for your help. The sporadically issue is the most annoying part of it.

Anyways, we just went through and hardcoded the require_once links in the openID folder and it seems to be okay now. Knock wood I guess.

Thanks again for your time.

james</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@cakebaker : Thanks heaps for your help. The sporadically issue is the most annoying part of it.</p>
<p>Anyways, we just went through and hardcoded the require_once links in the openID folder and it seems to be okay now. Knock wood I guess.</p>
<p>Thanks again for your time.</p>
<p>james</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cakebaker</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-121245</link>
		<dc:creator>cakebaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-121245</guid>
		<description>@James: It&#039;s strange that the issue appears only sporadically...

My guess is that it is some problem with the include path and ini_set/ini_get (at the top of the Openid component), but I have no idea what... So right now I&#039;m quite clueless :&#124;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@James: It&#8217;s strange that the issue appears only sporadically&#8230;</p>
<p>My guess is that it is some problem with the include path and ini_set/ini_get (at the top of the Openid component), but I have no idea what&#8230; So right now I&#8217;m quite clueless :|</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Rickard</title>
		<link>http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/comment-page-2/#comment-121069</link>
		<dc:creator>James Rickard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/02/06/new-version-of-the-openid-component/#comment-121069</guid>
		<description>@cakebaker - Thanks muchly for taking the time to look into it. We are still getting the error. Is there something in the server setup I maybe overlooking? I doubt it, but I guess thats where the difference is, somewhere in the background.


Thanks again
james</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@cakebaker &#8211; Thanks muchly for taking the time to look into it. We are still getting the error. Is there something in the server setup I maybe overlooking? I doubt it, but I guess thats where the difference is, somewhere in the background.</p>
<p>Thanks again<br />
james</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
