News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008). Parent comment

Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by SkyBelow on Friday May 10, 2019 @03:29PM (#19881393)
Isn't most of the security concern fixed by using guids instead of incrementing ints?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by xyzzyz on Friday May 10, 2019 @03:36PM (#19881462)
Yes, but please don't use guids in urls.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by SkyBelow on Friday May 10, 2019 @04:10PM (#19881751)
Seems like your options are:

1. Mutable data (looks nice but can change)

2. Incrementing data (looks nice but can be guessed and measured)

3. Random looking data (immutable and unguessable but ugly)

Guids aren't the only option for 3 and some of the others may not look as bad, but it still seems the safest option. Any other compelling reasons to not use guids?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by coldtea on Friday May 10, 2019 @04:59PM (#19882176)
There's no reason not to use guids in urls.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by xyzzyz on Sunday May 12, 2019 @01:23PM (#19893171)
Other than them being obnoxiously long, that is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Database IDs Have No Place in URIs (2008) by darkr on Friday May 10, 2019 @03:54PM (#19881633)
why?
[ Parent | on HN ]