|
|
|
|
|
by supermatt
1351 days ago
|
|
no - i mean the generic concept of a signed cookie as I described, which would have none of the drawbacks you mentioned. They can even be encrypted, if desired. There are many, many implementations in use "in the wild". They are just signed payloads, so they can contain "expiration", "not-before" or whatever else you think isnt "baked-in". You can use any method of signing them, but would probably make sense to use a strategy that is considered secure :) No doubt the libs you mention can be extended trivially with this "missing" functionality. Signed/encrypted cookies predate JWT - they even predate JSON... Im not presuming that they are better/worse than JWT, just responding to the incorrect statement about cookie based sessions requiring server-side storage |
|