<ill_logic>
So it seems like the purpose of a cookie secret is add signatures to session ids to make sure nobody can hijack another user.
<ill_logic>
Seems like I wouldn't need to worry so much about that if it's packaged by Sandstorm?
<ill_logic>
Hmm. Actually maybe not. if the app's session id is in a different cookie than Sandstorm's, a different sandstorm user might still try to hijack another session in the app?
<isd>
Not familiar with etherpad's internals, but often those types of things are also used for CSRF tokens, which sandstorm does not totally obviate currently.
<ocdtrekkie>
Yeah, the risk of someone impersonating another in an Etherpad document is probably low, but arguably technically a possibility?
<isd>
I think it is prudent to assume the cookie secret is necessary even in Sandstorm.