Timeline for What is a word to describe the opposite of "authentication"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2018 at 2:16 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1009258765135306753 | ||
| Jun 20, 2018 at 0:59 | answer | added | Moses Alowonle | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 9:52 | history | edited | Drax | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
while i tottaly agree with the previous edit, i think it is important that the word "opposite" appears in the question simply to improve its web referencing in search engines based on the fact the most efficient search commonly uses short words with strong meaning like "opposite"
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 17:51 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 19 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 17:38 | answer | added | MatrixManAtYrService | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 24, 2016 at 22:13 | comment | added | Phil Sweet | @doc The authentication hasn't been revoked if he still possess the token. Authorization has been revoked. The token continued to identify the proper individual and he authenticated just fine. When you take the token from the person, now he can no longer authenticate, but nothing about his previous authentications has changed. As Gus mentioned, confusion over identification and authorization causes headaches everywhere. | |
| May 24, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | Doc | @PhilSweet In software, you could do something similar. Log in and get authenticated, then later get banned (while logged in). When you refresh the page or click a link or whatever, the software recognizes that your token has been revoked, and doesn't allow you to load the page, instead removing you from the 'secure' area and sending you to an error or log-in page where you would have to reauthenticate. | |
| May 24, 2016 at 18:43 | comment | added | Doc | @PhilSweet Say you have an ID card which you have to swipe to go through a series of doors at your work. That morning, you get to the front door, swipe your card, and go in. Then, to enter the restricted area of the building where you work, you have to swipe again. Later that day, you leave the restricted area to use the bathroom. During this time, you also get fired. Your ID card (your authentication token) is disabled, your authentication revoked. When you swipe the door for the restricted area, it doesn't open, and security guards see you swiped, run over, grab you, and throw you out | |
| May 19, 2016 at 23:12 | comment | added | Phil Sweet | @Doc Can you give an example, because I can't get by head around that. If I authenticate and walk through the door, how can that be revoked? You can do many things, but you can't not-through-the-door me. | |
| May 19, 2016 at 22:23 | comment | added | Phil Sweet | I'm leaning Gus's way. An authentication happens in an instant - or it doesn't. It is not a status that can be rolled back. Authorization establishes a status and deauthorization rolls it back. If an authentication was a mistake, you can't undo that, and the people that handle breaches aren't the people that handle authentication. | |
| May 19, 2016 at 17:24 | answer | added | A C | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 16:51 | answer | added | Hapax Legomenon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 9, 2014 at 9:09 | vote | accept | Drax | ||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 20:26 | comment | added | Gus | @AndrewLeach well, you can decide not to continue allowing access to a user based on an authentication attempt. But, the fact remains that when the user presented their credentials, and the system accepted them, the authentication occurred. Many systems even now have difficulty with that time between when a set of credentials are marked invalid, and the user that presented them is 'still logged in'. That's because an authentication happens at a point in time, and is either successful or not; but authorization can (should?) be an ongoing decision. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 19:00 | answer | added | Canis Lupus | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:58 | answer | added | MrHen | timeline score: 22 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:44 | comment | added | Doc | You could certainly revoke an authentication. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:42 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | @Gus Authentication can expire or be rescinded. When it is, the authority goes too. I could authenticate a painting which is subsequently found to be inauthentic; I could authenticate a user based on a token which appears genuine but is subsequently found not to be. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:31 | history | edited | Tim Lymington | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added tag
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:25 | comment | added | Gus | I dabble in computer security some, and I think the confusion comes from using 'authenticate' to mean 'authenticate and authorize'. This meaning was common on systems where authentication directly implied authority. But in reality, authentication (establishing authentic identity) is only the first step in authorization (establishing what data and/or actions are available to a user). In short, authentication isn't something that expires. You either were authenticated or you were not. The authority derived from that authentication is what can expire. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:16 | history | reopened |
mplungjan choster MrHen FumbleFingers J.R. |
||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:16 | history | edited | J.R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
"I" instead of "i"
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:35 | comment | added | mplungjan | de-authenticate - google has 8mio compared to 18K of disauthenticate and even asks "did you mean de-authenticate" | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:33 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:20 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:28 | comment | added | Drax | So which one of de-authenticate or disauthenticate is better ? | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 15:18 | comment | added | mplungjan | The question is now clear. The answer is likely de-authenticate as it is used in the wild | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 14:08 | history | closed |
mplungjan J.R. Andrew Leach♦ tchrist♦ JLG |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 12:19 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Drax: In most contexts, the best single word to mean "reverse an authentication" would be invalidate. If you insist on sticking with the same base word, disauthenticate would always be understood, but it's not a very "nice" word (i.e. - although other people sometimes use it "faut de mieux", mostly they don't). | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 11:31 | history | edited | Drax | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 230 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 11:28 | comment | added | Drax | @J.R. To reverse an authentication. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 11:21 | comment | added | J.R. | What do you mean by an "opposite" here? To erroneously authenticate? To reverse an authentication? To have no authentication requirements at all? | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:50 | comment | added | mplungjan | Please add as answer, WS2 so I can upvote | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:49 | history | edited | mplungjan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed my own correction
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:48 | comment | added | mplungjan | If you already googled, please let us know. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:47 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 14:08 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:37 | comment | added | WS2 | @Drax Could it be de-authenticate? | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:36 | answer | added | Bala Varadarajan | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:34 | comment | added | Drax | @mplungjan that's what i did the half-hour before posting this :) | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:32 | answer | added | MartinSGill | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:36 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:31 | comment | added | mplungjan | please google for antonym authenticate | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:30 | history | edited | mplungjan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 10:14 | history | asked | Drax | CC BY-SA 3.0 |