Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

goodoldweb.com

21–30 of 178 posts

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#21
post #13

I'd recommend you to use Argon2 instead of bcrypt for storing password. It has won the Password Hashing Competition last year and is the recommended way to store passwords. Bcrypt is not bad but it could be used with insecure parameters while Argon2 does not have insecure parameters. The way you create cookies is also insecure, you should be using crypto/rand instead of math/rand AND rather hex.EncodeToString() the r…

The math/random point is well taken.

The hex.EncodeToString() point is a nit. Generate 128 bits of randomness, and then encode it however you'd like. The track record of people trying to get "generate random numbers in the alphanumeric range" isn't great; it's an opportunity to reintroduce bias. Start with a random token of sufficient size, then encode.

The Argon2 vs. bcrypt thing is unhelpful. It does not matter what password hash you use, so long as you use a hash designed for password storage (ie: not "salted SHA-2"). Bcrypt is fine. I prefer scrypt, for the obvious hardware tradeoff. I don't recommend Argon2 to people (or tell people to stop using it) because of the library support issues.

But I think it's specifically a bad idea to tell people to switch password hashes from bcrypt (or PBKDF2) to the trendy new hash. The security benefit of "upgrading" from one password hash to another is marginal.

(Obviously, the benefit of switching from "salted" hashes to real password hashes is not).

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#24

Works beautifully with w3m which has become my main site test lately. Another great example is HN itself. If it doesn't work well with w3m something is wrong with the site philosophy or execution.

> If it doesn't work well with w3m something is wrong with the site philosophy or execution.

Point of clarification: "wrong" according to your moral philosophy about web sites, even if it's one I happen to share.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#26
Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend.

And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Web_0_0x2e_1

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#28

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#29

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.

Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#30

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

Nah, this is as 1.0 as you can get, assuming you're not asking for completely unstyled text. Forum scripts with this sort of simplicity were around for decades, with UBB being created in 1996 (and having significantly more features than this software), and basic scripts like WWWBoard dating back to 1995 or earlier.

It was AJAX and processing data via JavaScript that was a web 2.0 thing (for the most part), not just submitting forms in general.

Post reply on HN