I know it allows a third party to have access to the user's data of the another website. If I just want to make an e-commerce website with Facebook login, and it'll only be used by my customer, is it an overkill to use OAuth?
For an ecommerce website you will require stuff such as phone number, address, pincode etc.. Facebook wont give you all of these things.
As not a lot of people save such info on fb,
Its wont be an overkill, infact it is much easier, but you wont benefit from it at all.
Thr best thing would be to get an write a custom login system, make it short and simple.Maybe even get a bulk sms module/service to verify phone numbers or order confirmations.
If the Facebook login is the only way to login, it can be quite limiting for people having no Facebook account or not wanting to use it. But it's not difficult to implement and it can make your application safer (not keeping passwords in your database) and easier to use for Facebook users, which I think makes it worth the effort.
After the first successful Facebook authentication, you can ask users for all additional data you need not available from Facebook.
And if you support one OAuth2 provider, it's easy to add other ones later (such as Google).
I would host the Website on Google Cloud Platform or one of the other big players (Azure, AWS) and use their Authentication systems and APIs.
In today's Cyber Security environment it seems almost "foolish" to use any other route. Why do you want to setup a "custom login system" when using things like Firebase (Azure or AWS has things too) makes it so you can do 5 or 6 of the major Social Logins and/or a username password system while "someone else" deals with all the hassles of password management and prevention password breaches.
There is no way a "small business" can compete with the security and infrastructure that these "Big Player" provide.
Related
Note: This is the first time I'm trying to implement a social login API, so thanks for bearing with me and helping me out!
I am developing a web application and I have a login and registration system already developed. Now, I am thinking of adding Facebook and Google+ login - with a backend. I went through their docs and other tutorials and they require to implement considerably a lot of things.
But, since I have a registration system already, I thought of doing something like this:
Have the social login buttons on the login page.
When the user clicks on a social login button and authorizes the app, the user data is returned from Google+, for example.
Now, instead of proceeding with the OAuth procedure like getting the user ID, secret ID and contacting their server from my server for token verification and getting data, is it possible to just use the data returned (after the user authorizes) and do the normal registration with the registration system that I already have?
These are the advantages that I see in doing this:
No need of extra code or database fields like token ID, etc.
User can add a password to their account whenever they want and login to the site or access their account by logging in through Facebook or Google+ given that they use the same email ID.
It's enough to use the social login providers' API once - the first time the user logs in (which technically registers the user to the site).
I know the advantages are the same when following the full OAuth2 implementation, but what difference does it make?
Now my questions are:
Is it OK to cut short on the social login as mentioned above?
Will I be losing any obvious advantage doing so (given that I already have a registration system in place)?
If yes, is anyone else cutting short on the flow in their website?
The system proposed by you has certain flaws, especially security related flaw. I would give you to the point answer:
You will send data from client after getting it from google+ or other provider and use your registration process implicitly.
This approach is wrong as I myself as an attacker can send you the data from google+ using my clientid for an app. Will you register or login using the info I am sending? I can pretend to be anyone in your system if you do that.
Is it OK to cut short on the social login as mentioned above?
Will I be losing any obvious advantage doing so (given that I already have a registration system in place)?
If yes, is anyone else cutting short on the flow in their website?
No. (see the reason above).
No. You won't be losing advantage as you already have system in place. Most of the sites have a system in place for normal registration. They give oauth login by leveraging it. Some will say that the password is cumbersome or such, but all famous sites provide login and password including SO.
Now the question comes, how to simplify the oauth system given that you already have a system in place.
I recommend this(I would assume Google as a provider) flow with things starting with dot are what you need to do:
You have a Google login button.
User click on Google Button.
The User is redirected to the Google site.
The user gives you permission.
Google redirects and give you a token.
You can now send info and token to your server. (You need to send only token as backend will get info. Otherwise, a user with valid google+ token for your website can send you any info).
Backend verify token and match that "aud" is equal to your client id. Or it can happen via a library. You will need to give only your client id.
Backend get profile info from token in case of Google+(Name, email) while verifying which you can store as part of your registration process or login process if that email already exists. You can store google id of user also. This is useful as some provider like fb don't always provide email for every account. (For some fb don't give email but for majority of cases it give you the email.)
Backend send back session info or jwt token or any other time bounded process which tells that the user is login.
Your user can login via email also. If he isn't already registered then, then he will need to register. Otherwise, using forget, he can set password or from accounts settings he can set password.
You also need to be careful if the same user is connecting via a different provider, he need to have the same account in your system which you can handle via email.
Kevin,
Authentication is a complex procedure involving lot of measures to ensure security. Hence Web-application/ App developers, delegate this critical piece of work to Identity providers like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. These Identity providers are trusted by the app developers and more importantly the consumers trust them too.
Why do app developers provide third party/ social logins? Because, it gives the users of the app some advantages.
They don't have to create new account with the app and remember the new set of credentials. Instead they can use the same credentials they are using with the Identity provider, to gain access to the app. This is huge.
They don't have to trust the app completely, means how the sensitive information like passwords, security questions are handled in the app, as they are not providing any sensitive information directly on the app. Only needed public information is fed to the app from the Identity provider. This is huge too.
No need to worry about the system compromise and leak of sensitive information as all Open ID providers have better security policies in place. This gives consumers a high degree of confidence when using your system through third party logins.
"All the advantages you mentioned will be great for the app developers
at the cost of disadvantages to the consumers of the app."
Lets put the consumer disadvantages on the side and look at the advantages you mentioned:
No need of extra code or database fields like token ID, etc.
You still need code/setup to validate your own tokens. You have to add more logic to verify the external tokens, but the consumers will have the advantage of using the external providers like they are in any other application.
User can add a password to their account whenever they want and login to the site or access their account by logging in through Facebook or Google+ given that they use the same email ID.
This is little confusing as users may choose external provider, so they don't have to remember a new password. Also, the account validation process is different if you use external login vs id/password login. If you are willing to provide both, then you already have the system in place, to verify the account for external logins. Then your first advantage is void and you are better of using Open ID spec.
It's enough to use the social login providers' API once - the first time the user logs in (which technically registers the user to the site).
This approach adds confusion to the flow for consumers. They expect to see a login screen from third party provider for authentication (when they click on google+ or FB), but instead they see your login screen.
Instead of cut short approach, it would be worth to use the complete flow. You might add more logic to handle the token verification with external providers, but, actual complex logic of token validation is delegated to the external providers. This adds no confusion to the end user and they can trust your application easily through social id providers. Even though, users can authenticate through social Id providers, it is always a best practice to have the profile object of that user in your system (without the sensitive information like password).
Since you have your own registration process in place, this may not be a huge advantage. But, please look into the open source implementation of any of the Security Token Service (STS) providers, to see if you can borrow some of the features for validation external providers.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Soma.
Recently I just notice how Path, Pinterest, and the like change the way they authenticate their users. Currently it seems that they require us to create an account associated with Facebook or Twitter. I could not understand the reason behind this. Is there any security concern for them to make this move?
Why is simple authentication with Facebook and Twitter not enough?
I think it is about giving the site more control over their future and the relationship to their users.
If they have their own account system, but allow the users to link it to Facebook or Twitter, that link can later be changed if the relationship with those providers turns sour.
The big reason is that they don't have to take any risk with handling passwords, etc. which can get hacked. They are offloading the security of user accounts to bigger partners, so they don't have to worry about it.
I'm trying to work out the best architecture for a couple of apps I'm developing.
In both apps I want to utilise google/twitter/LinkedIn/etc to provide authentication of a users identity. The app is composed of an iOS app which has an option to send data to a server which I'm writing in node.js.
I want to utilise either OAuth or OpenId to handle identifying a user against the above servers so that I don't have to put in an authentication system of my own. In other words, allowing users to re-use their ids when choosing to upload data.
I should also note that apart from identifying a user, obtaining a name and email address, I have not intention of using any of their APIs at this time.
I think I have two options:
Place the Authorisation code in the iOS client and transmit some sort of key to the server with the data which it can then verify.
Keep the iOS client fairly dumb, and handle authorisation from the node server.
I'd probably prefer the second option because it means I could centralise authentication and be able to support a web site as well. That's my current theory.
Can anyone who has done something like this give me some pointers as to the pros and cons, OAuth or OpenId, or links to some examples?
In our previous app we opted for a combination of the two approaches. We wanted to centralize our user data on our server in the event we needed to make future API calls on those services. We also wanted the native oAuth experience for the user on the client. Ie: on Android and iOS, the developer can have single sign-on / authorization run through the native Facebook app (if available), vs. popping-up a webview that serves the 'Approve' dialog. It's a better user experience in my opinion. Also for Twitter, the oAuth process may require a PIN code to be entered in the callback which should probably be handled on the client side.
You can pass the access token retrieved by the client to the server for storage and later use if you intend on making additional API calls on these services, provided you expect the token to be long-lived (ie: offline-access permission on FB).
In any case this is mostly a user experience decision.
Let's say I am making a sign up form in which I asked user's twitter ID. How do I verify if the ID entered by user belongs to him/her? In case of verifying email we simply send a verification link which user has to click so how do I verify twitter ID? I have never used twitter before.
The only reliable and practical way to verify that twitter account X belongs to user Y this to do full on “3 legged” OAuth authentication. That being said, you may want to consider if you might be OK with just taking the user at their word on it.
Getting OAuth to work and securely storing the resulting tokens is much easier nowadays than it once was, but is still non-trivial.
Reasons to verify the twitter account, in increasing reasonableness:
You will be making enough server side requests, on behalf of multiple users, that you run up against Twitter’s API Rate Limiting. (Having multiple auth-tokens will allow for a higher API rate)
You need to automagically send tweets and/or follow accounts on the user’s behalf
N.B. do this as opt-in and be ultra clear about when/why you will be doing this, or you will face the justified fury of scorned users
Don’t verify the account if you’re looking to do these things:
You need to send tweets and/or follow accounts on the user’s behalf, and the user will be able to perform a browser based confirmation workflow for each of those actions; use Twitter’s Web Intents for this.
If you just want to pull in real time data for user’s avatar, bio, or recent Tweets Twitter supplies some prefab widgets for you.
All of the authenticated Twitter API Calls can be done client side with JavaScript. Twitter has a js framework, which does not require you to handle and store tokens on your server, to help you with that.
An alternate contact method for password resets, notifications, etc.
Private communication between users on twitter requires mutual following, many users probably never check their Direct Messages (or even know what a DM is), and any messages would be limited to 140 characters. Just use email for all that kind of nonsense.
If you’re just gathering this info to display it on a user’s profile page, in an “other places on the web” kind of way, integrating and maintaining all the server side OAuth pieces is likely too much bother. Just make sure you have a reasonable and clear TOS and an obvious way for 3rd parties to report any of your users who may be claiming a twitter account that is not their own.
If you’re still interested in OAuth, Twitter's Dev page has plenty of resources, including a nice overview of a generic “Sign In with Twitter” “3 legged” OAuth work flow.
Can we build applications on top of the twitter user base?
Is it just another open id or something more?
I noticed when using twitpic and some MUD type game 14mafia.com that it uses my twitter login (it tweets on your behalf).
If they are using my login/password that's pretty crazy, I mean what kind of security is that?
Anyhow, just want a developers who has expereince to tell me if we can re-use their membership like openid?
Can we build applications on top of
the twitter user base?
The Twitter API is described at http://apiwiki.twitter.com/
Is it just another open id or
something more?
Twitter is neither an OpenID consumer nor provider.
I noticed when using twitpic and some
MUD type game 14mafia.com that it uses
my twitter login (it tweets on your
behalf).
If they are using my login/password
that's pretty crazy, I mean what kind
of security is that?
Awful security. Don't give out your password to third party sites. Some just use the password anti-pattern, others will steal your credentials for purposes you don't want.
Twitter supports OAuth today. If a site wants to do things with your Twitter profile, it should use that.
Anyhow, just want a developers who has
expereince to tell me if we can re-use
their membership like openid?
No, you can't.
Twitter offers both OAuth and simple username/password authentication in its API. Originally they only had the basic authentication API so many early apps were built using it. Later, they added the OAuth support, but since it was easier to use the basic authentication, many twitter clients and apps still use it.
You can tell which one an application is using, because if they are using the simple authentication they will ask for your password. You have to trust them with it in that case. You're right that it's poor security.
I imagine they are using the Twitter API.