The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
So I'm working on this SOAP service, which needs to have a sort of two-layered security (according to specs).
The first is basic authentication, which is, of course, a well known protocol (which I had to implement myself because Azure App Services doesn't support this because it checks the (on-premise) AD by default).
The second is on message level, each request has an authentication token in the form of [username][divider][password].
Seems overkill, but alright.
Except that the username and password for the basic authentication are hard-coded!
It seems I can set the password in the third party application (although that's not possible/allowed according to the specs), but the username is definitely hard-coded in the application
If the username is hard-coded, but the password isn't, all I can do is check if the supplied password matches any passwords in the database* and then check if the token in the message belongs to that password*.
It's all rather clunky
So basically it's just authentication on message level with extra steps
The auth token (which is basically just another set of a username and password, which they call token) is sent over the same line as the basic auth
SSL goes without saying, it's part of the basic auth spec I believe (but even if it wasn't).
i have written code since i was very young. I wound up at microsoft at 18, and back then i thought it was amazing that i would get paid what i thought was loads of money for doing what i would have basically done anyway.
Still, eventually, I found out that if you do what you love for long enough, you'll no longer love what you do.
I finally decided I liked being a software developer more than I liked working in software.
Not sure how many people left the fold feeling how I did, but there it is.
I still love the craft, just not the job.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
When I was a very young lad, I could not understand what was attractive about a woman's ass. After the onset of puberty, I still didn't know . . . . but the endorphins flowed nonetheless.
Evolution has built this stuff in for the purpose of breeding. Forget about what's fashionable. A male would look for 'substantial' breasts as it implies food for the newborns; hips, etc., because it implies a higher probability of successful birth for both mother and child. Legs - one of the signals, as they reform from 'little girl' to 'woman' about being of breeding age. Although manifested consciously, it is really much deeper. Part of our animal nature that can and should be embraced.
Not knowing quite what's attractive in males, I would hypothesize that an important factor would be perceived strength to supply adequate food while the woman is tending the newborns; possibly protection.
Part of the beauty in all of this is that the actual manifestation of these characteristics and what one finds attractive varies throughout our species - survival at its best.
All of these enhanced by the delightful blessing of having a companion and partner.
In case I gave a bad impression, I was trying to put forth that it's not really 'free choice'.
Perverted, perhaps, by modern (and ever changing) "morals", "beauty", and the ever-famous "look what I can see!". Our breeding instincts have been maligned, and as a consequence, targets of perversion. Consider that only humans feel the need to hide while mating, creating the later 'perversion' of exhibitionism.
Evolution has built this stuff in for the purpose of breeding. Forget about what's fashionable. A male would look for 'substantial' breasts as it implies food for the newborns
Not me. I prefer women with the ability to walk upright, as it implies at least some intelligence.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Not knowing quite what's attractive in males, I would hypothesize...
That's simple. It's the thickness of your wallet and your social status. Appearance and even your body odor are secondary two these two perfumes. Lose them and you are instantly as attractive as a monkey, appearance again totally irrelevant.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
The cruelty of denying someone a life-partner; condemning them to loneliness; is unthinkable.
That being said, I am disregarding social pressures and politics. We, like all other creatures that require male+female to reproduce, have evolved the overwhelming need to reproduce effectively. this as an imperative (viz-a-viz, extinction). Thus, it makes sense in evolutionary terms to be attracted to characteristics that optimize breeding success. Whether one casts this as 'so straight', 'mainstream', or whatever is irrelevant: nature doesn't really give a damn. If I recall correctly, the part of the brain wherein lies one's libido is only less carefully protected, by location, then that part which tell your lungs to breathe and heart to beat. Accept your animal self and be liberated from sociopolitical tyranny. Howl at the full moon and be free.
Here's further grist for your mill: attraction for an 'exotic' other is quite common. Genetic advantages to this are obvious (dilute those nasty recessive genes!).