f00l wrote:
> Come here to get help, not abuse
> for what its worth:
> sql dbase with fields
> usernamepassiptime
> if duplicate username/passowrd then check that IPs match and dont do
> anything
> if IPs <> match then kick both users off / disable username/password
>
> go figure the co
Come here to get help, not abuse
for what its worth:
sql dbase with fields
usernamepassiptime
if duplicate username/passowrd then check that IPs match and dont do
anything
if IPs <> match then kick both users off / disable username/password
go figure the code out yourself
here is the
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:53:32 -0700, Dan Tappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You really can't prevent the shared password issue unless you billed on
a per login basis.
That may be one possible solution (although with my limited knowledge of
the industry, I don't know how viable). Charge something
What about using a simple session database to ensure multiple logins
are not allowed. You can create a session, store the session ID in
mysql. If the same user tries to login again from a different location
i.e. new session ID you can lock them out / log this activity.
You really can't preven
Dan Trainor wrote:
> I'm pretty aware of how it all works. However, the problem lies in the
> fact that because most of the pre-installed billing software relies
> solely on .htaccess/.htpasswd-based authentication, it's not possible to
> just change the whole login system. For the most part, the
> The difficulty is trying to find a solution that would limit
> access and do all the fancy stuff that we had discussed,
> without interfering with the pre-existing authentication
> system.
How about taking the auth status of a user from the headers and then
performing additional verification
Mikey wrote:
To address Mikey's question - I am not looking for a way to
uniquely identify users. For one, it's just not possible.
On top of that, the vast majority of members with to stay
anonymous for reasons that I am not even going to begin to
state on this list, because we all know where
Dan Trainor wrote:
Jochem Maas wrote:
...
I don't think that this is an issue that is specific to pr0n. Sure, the
first thing that we think of when we hear a traded login is actually
pr0n, but it is most definately not limited to this arena.
does anybody know whether pr0n sites have a much highe
> To address Mikey's question - I am not looking for a way to
> uniquely identify users. For one, it's just not possible.
> On top of that, the vast majority of members with to stay
> anonymous for reasons that I am not even going to begin to
> state on this list, because we all know where th
Jochem Maas wrote:
Hi Mikey,
you writing is very balanced, nicely put... I very much
agree with the position you take/have (maybe my OP didn't put
it quite so clearly ;-)
but you write that Dan probably agrees that (any) exploitation
(that occurs) is a bad thing... a logical assumption now read
Hi Mikey,
you writing is very balanced, nicely put... I very much
agree with the position you take/have (maybe my OP didn't put
it quite so clearly ;-)
but you write that Dan probably agrees that (any) exploitation
(that occurs) is a bad thing... a logical assumption now read
this a weep (it a
[snip everything irrelevant]
On a tehnical note, I don't really see how you can prevent this sharing of
logins. This is something I was actually looking into for a site that had
nothing to do with pr0n (would love to know where that came from, it seems
so universal now).
If you read up on the ge
AdamT wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:42:37 -0800 (PST), Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I know absolutely nothing about how ProxyPass, iProtect, and PureMember
work
'Pure'member seems such an odd choice of name for something used on pr0n sites.
This product is not marketed exclusively for
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:42:37 -0800 (PST), Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I know absolutely nothing about how ProxyPass, iProtect, and PureMember
> work
'Pure'member seems such an odd choice of name for something used on pr0n sites.
--
AdamT
"Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has n
On 28 Feb 2005 dan wrote:
> Go ahead and look at my first email. For some reason you didn't get the
> idea that I was looking for solutions. Ideas. I wasn't looking for
> anything solid.
It really wasn't so clear what you were looking for. It is to you, but not
necessarily to the reader.
Richard Lynch wrote:
Dan Trainor wrote:
I'm not quite sure why you chose the PHP community as a recipient -- There
are quite a few Apache modules out there.
And Modules such as mod_auth_mysql and mod_auth_ldap (?) and, really, any
old mod_auth_XYZ module would be a closer "match" for what you want,
Dan Trainor wrote:
I'm not quite sure why you chose the PHP community as a recipient -- There
are quite a few Apache modules out there.
And Modules such as mod_auth_mysql and mod_auth_ldap (?) and, really, any
old mod_auth_XYZ module would be a closer "match" for what you want, I
think.
I know a
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:37, dan wrote:
> Well I'll be God Damned. You're pretty clever. You're surly going to
> Heaven, now!
Oh no, he'll surely terrorize all of heaven with his surliness ;)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
..
| InterJinn Applicatio
Jochem Maas wrote:
if you any of the following might apply to you, please hit delete now:
1. easily offended.
2. think this email _needs_ a reply.
3. no sense of humour.
4. can't accept that humour varies from person to person.
thanks, that will save alot of heart-ache and bandwidth...
LETS RANT BA
if you any of the following might apply to you, please hit delete now:
1. easily offended.
2. think this email _needs_ a reply.
3. no sense of humour.
4. can't accept that humour varies from person to person.
thanks, that will save alot of heart-ache and bandwidth...
LETS RANT BABY :-)
Dan Trainor
20 matches
Mail list logo
