My stupidity knows no bounds. I used the wrong username. It actually works fine :D Although it's very interesting that I have to use a different username for the http auth then for the website. Maybe it's because I was registered on Whiskey originally?
Miles's forum posts
Basically, it seems like authenticating through the website works fine:
[tbyte@arch shm]$ rm cookie output;token=$(curl -s -S -b cookie -c cookie https://auth.giantbomb.com/login/ | grep token | sed -e 's/.*token."[ ]value[=]"\(.*\)".*/\1/g');curl -s -S -b cookie -c cookie -L -i -d 'form[_username]=miles64' -d form[_password]=‘xxxxxxxx’ -d 'form[_target_path]=/login/?login=success' -d "form[_token]=$token" 'https://auth.giantbomb.com/check-login/' > /dev/null;curl -s -S -b cookie -c cookie http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/feed/hd/8/
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
<channel xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<title>Giant Bomb - Features - [hd]</title>
<copyright>2007 - CBS Interactive</copyright>
<itunes:subtitle xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">This is a subscriber only feed for videos on Giant Bomb</itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:author xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">Giant Bomb</itunes:author>
<itunes:summary xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">This is a subscriber only feed for videos on Giant Bomb</itunes:summary>
<description>This is a subscriber only feed for videos on Giant Bomb</description>
<atom:link xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" href="http://auth.giantbomb.com/videos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
But HTTP authentication doesn't work:
[tbyte@arch shm]$ curl -s -S -i -u 'miles64:xxxxxxxx' 'http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/feed/hd/8/'
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:18:21 GMT
Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=xxxxxxxx; path=/; domain=.giantbomb.com
Set-Cookie: device_view=not_mobile; expires=Mon, 27-Jan-2014 08:00:00 GMT; path=/; httponly
WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="Subscriber Area"
Removed the passwords/session ID from the post but obviously I used the same password.
btw, there are no certainties in life. people need to take managed risks in order to grow. is there anything protecting GB completely from interference from CBSi? most likely there isn't, unless the CBSi guys are beyond retarded, I mean then technically there would be nothing stopping this site to put up illegal material and CBSi as a parent company would be held responsible ultimately - it isn't realistic that a major corporation would sign something like this. but there was also not a damn thing protecting them from interference from Shelby Bonnie either.
remember Jeff talking about how there were multiple other 'bidders' for GB but they didn't go with them? this is what he was talking about. they took a hard look at all of them, and decided that a company like BB would carry a far higher risk than CBSi when it comes to interfering with content. considering the apocalyptic shitstorm gamespot went through in 2007, I'm in really serious doubts that there's any risk on this front btw. but even if there was, like I said, they can always bail.
@Marokai: I said this in another thread, but CBSi bought GB, not Jeff or Ryan or anyone else. Unless you think that these guys lost integrity since 2007 (which would be pretty ridiculous), then wouldn't it make more sense for them to bail if CBSi started pulling shenanigans? They've done the same when management last tried to fuck with their creative control, and founded this website. Btw, when this happened, the content they produced was still beyond awesome. Unless you can give me a good reason why, after 15 odd years they'd lose their passion and integrity for this line of work all of a sudden, I don't have any reason to expect them to do anything but either produce the same or better quality content than before, or bail and become independent again.
@MKHavoc: well I can sort of understand the reason, I mean it's not like they need the money now that they're owned by one of the biggest corporations on the planet, so might as well support someone else who actually needs the money. for myself, I think $5/mo is worth it simply for the extra vids. hell, I'd pay $10 for jar time alone. but certainly that 'supporting the indie game site' feel is gone.
one thing everyone needs to ask themselves is: do you like tested, or do you like will and norm?
if you like tested, you're shit out of luck, because tested has changed, permanently. no, you're not a shareholder or have any special power over what shelby bonnie or lloyd braun decide to do with their property because you paid $5 a month for a service they offered. your best bet is to try and enjoy the new content, or find another site to enjoy.
if you like will and norm however, then you can be damn sure that you're doing them a disservice by pooping on, what they feel like, is "their opportunity of a lifetime". OBVIOUSLY they're really excited about this and think that this will propel them to much greater heights. why would they stay if they didn't? they could leave any day they please. these are people who created their own successful independent tech site (which today is a miracle, seeing how ridiculously oversatured this area is), remember. if all they wanted is money, there'd be far better ways to go about it as a tech writer (far more stable ways with significantly less work involved as well, mind). just put yourself into their shoes for a second, if they really hated this, what would keep them from creating their own new site? like will said, WM/BB doesn't own them, only the name 'tested'. and tech blog n in 2012 without will and norm's personalities is worth absolutely fucking nothing.
btw, the exact same thing can be said of GB + CBS.