We are currently using an outdated screen scraper gem to import contacts from gmail/yahoo/etc. I want to update this to use the new OAuth based APIs so users don't have to enter their credentials on our site. I'm really intrigued by the work Plaxo is doing with Portable Contacts which Google also supports. It feels like that is a good direction for read-only access, and it is still backed by OAuth.
Are there any compelling reasons to just go with the standard OAuth API for these providers instead of going the Portable Contacts route? I'd like to know if there are strong reasons to avoid it. I'll still be using straight OAuth for the ones that don't support PC so it's not a question of development time, more one of support and confidence in the new approach.
The idea is that each OAuth implementation will be slightly different where as each Portable Contacts implementation will be the same. It's kind of like a REST API (OAuth) vs. a SOAP API (Portable Contacts --but with the same overhead as OAuth).
So you should theoretically be able to make one Portable Contacts Reader and hook it to any provider who supports it with no additional work.
In reality for now, you'll probably need to work with both Portable Contacts and OAuth-non-portable endpoints. (With most OAuth-non-portable providers hopefully moving towards Portable Contacts).
OAuth Core doesn't define either discovery (leading users to the OAuth URL which will let them authorize the resource to the consumer) or representation (informing the consumer about what authorization the token will provide). Without a spec such as Portable Contacts, these need to agreed upon ad-hoc by the consumer and provider (with discovery probably being simplified to a well-known URL). So Portable Contacts is just answering those questions once for each provider which uses them. You'll need to work out the ad-hoc answers if you want to support providers which don't, but you'll be using the same OAuth Core implementation for all of them anyway.
Portable Contacts itself builds on the OAuth Discovery spec, which seems to be expired without a replacement, unfortunately.
Related
So I have been looking into OAuth lately, I want to authorize another of my domain which has separate database using OAuth. Upon searching I found auth0.com. Which sounded similar to Oauth and I created a sample implementation, it offers support for custom databases also. We have users stored in external api running on .net core, and I learnt that auth0.com is not free after trial expiration. So my efforts kindof got wasted. Now I am looking for authorization method that works for both domains.
Now my question is, does it even make sense to use Oauth for this task? Since I won't be giving it to third party and it's matter of two databases. How should i approach this and what are opensource Oauth services that allow custom database.
I would like to know if One Drive supports those four ways of Authorization. Please refer to this link. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#page-23
We are integrating our DVR and NVR with One Drive now and we need to understand which authorization method One Drive supports. We are trying to use OneDrive with embedded ARM processors, so the user does not have access to a browser as they would for a web-app.
Please kindly advise how we should proceed from here. Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.
Best Wishes,
Ted Yang
I am going to say yes, OneDrive probably supports those ways of authorization, because on their authentication documentations page they say the following:
The OneDrive API uses the standard OAuth 2.0 authentication scheme to authenticate users and generate access tokens.
That link takes us to the oauth.net site page for OAuth 2.0. On that page, we find the following:
The final version of the spec can be found at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749
which is the document you linked. The OneDrive API documentation says it supports OAuth 2.0, and your linking the definition of OAuth 2.0, so I think it's safe to say it's supported. How to use it is another question entirely, and one I am unable to answer.
I will note, however, that on the OAuth page, they have this to say about it's uses (emphasis mine):
OAuth 2.0 focuses on client developer simplicity while providing specific authorization flows for web applications, desktop applications, mobile phones, and living room devices.
I would presume that living room devices could include DVRs, and although your DVRs are for security purposes, the development of cloud storage APIs for either would undoubtedly be similar. So I would say this is probably quite possible.
How to do it:
First things first, you'll need to register your app. This gets you a client id and a client secret which you'll need. Registration directions
There are two methods: token flow and code flow. Token flow is two steps, and code flow is three steps. However token flow uses tokens that expire, so it would require the user to reenter thigns periodically. You therefor want to use code flow. Here's some directions for that.
Basically the steps of the code flow are:
Get an authorization code
User authorization code to get an access token
User access token to make API calls
You WILL need to make HTTP requests. I'm sure you should be able to do this with ARM embedded C. However, step 1 is what gives you to the Microsoft account login page. I am note sure how to circumvent this, exactly. I'm not sure you're supposed to be ABLE to circumvent this, since Microsoft doesn't want you handling their customers' passwords.
They have an example in Javascript that might give useful details on oauth in the oauth.js file. Javascript sample project
I'm starting a new system creating using .NET MVC - which is a relatively large scale business management platform. There's some indication that we'll open the platform to public once it is released and pass the market test.
We will be using ExtJs for the front-end which leads us to implement most data mining work return in JSON format - this makes me think whether I should learn the OAuth right now and try to embed the OAuth concept right from the beginning?
Basically the platform we want to create will initially fully implemented internally with a widget system; our boss is thinking to learn from Twitter to build just a core database and spread out all different features into other modules that can be integrated into the platform. To secure that in the beginning I proposed intranet implementation which is safer without much authentication required; however they think it will be once-for-all efforts if we can get a good implementation like OAuth into the platform as we start? (We are team of 6 and none of us know much about OAuth in fact!)
I don't know much about OAuth, so if it's worth to implement at the beginning of our system, I'll have to take a look and have my vote next week for OAuth in our meeting. This may effect how we gonna implement the whole web service thing, so may I ask anyone who's done large-scale web service /application before give some thoughts and advice for me?
Thanks.
OAuth 1 is nice if you want to use HTTP connections. If you can simply enforce HTTPS connections for all users, you might want to use OAuth 2, which is hardly more than a shared token between the client and server that's sent for each single request, plus a pre-defined way to get permission from the user via a web interface.
If you have to accept plain HTTP as well, OAuth 1 is really nice. It protects against replay attacks, packet injection or modification, uses a shared secret instead of shared token, etc. It is, however, a bit harder to implement than OAuth 2.
OAuth 2 is mostly about how to exchange username/password combinations for an access token, while OAuth 1 is mostly about how make semi-secure requests to a server over an unencrypted connection. If you don't need any of that, don't use OAuth. In many cases, Basic HTTP Authentication via HTTPS will do just fine.
OAuth is a standard for authentication and authorization. You can read about it in many places and learn; Generally the standard lets a client register in the authentication server, and then whenever this client attempts to access a protected resource, he is directed to the auth-server to get a token (first he gets a code, then he exchanges it with a token). But this is only generally, there are tons of details and options here...
Basically, one needs a good reason to use oAuth. If a simpler authentication mechanism is good for you - go for it.
I'm trying to secure my MVC4 Web Api. Actually, I just really need an identity provider with some light security. My service is similar to twitter, from a security standpoint, there's not a lot of private data, but the service does need to know the userid for the caller.
It's also important to know that the web service will only be consumed by mobile devices right now, although a website may accompany it at some future point.
S.O. and the internet have led me to Thinktecture.IdentityModel, but man it seems complex and I can find exactly zero documentation or samples. I also haven't yet had a pleasant experience with claims-based authentication. I don't have a claims server, token provider, or anything like that, and it seems like you would need that to use this method. This all seems far to heavy for my situation.
I've also read about people implementing their own HMAC solution (https://github.com/cuongle/WebAPI.Hmac) or using OAuth (https://github.com/maksymilian-majer/DevDefined.OAuth) but these also seem a bit complex (I've read that OAuth without the helper class is enough to make the best developers cry, and I'm not the best). Janrain looks like it might work, but it looks like you have to pay for more than 2,500 authenticated users per year ...
What is the best way to implement a simple identity provider and security for Web Api?
Thanks!
I have attempted to answer a similar question to this before Create an OAuth 2.0 service provider using DotNetOpenAuth where I highlighted the Thinkecture Identity Server. The Setup instructions not too difficult (IMHO) The installation video is here and should help a lot.
I have updated my older answer with this too but there is also a fairly lightweight O-Auth 2.0 implementation example here Sample code here http://code.google.com/p/codesmith/downloads/detail?name=OAuth2.zip&can=2&q=#makechanges
Have you also read this well articulated question here Authenticating requests from mobile (iPhone) app to ASP.Net Web API (Feedback requested on my design)
Well, security is hard :)
As for Thinktecture.IdentityModel -- this is a token processing library (among other things) that you'd use in your WebAPI application. You'd use this so you don't need to do the logic to accept tokens (basic auth, SAML, SWT, JWT). Claims are just a side-effect.
If you're looking for an identity provider, then the sister open source project Thinktecture.IdentityServer is in beta for version 2. It's an identity provider that supports a custom database and issues tokens. The project URL is:
http://thinktecture.github.com/Thinktecture.IdentityServer.v2/
In response to the problem of finding example code as documentation, consider the samples folder in the Thinktecture github repo: https://github.com/thinktecture/Thinktecture.IdentityModel.45/tree/master/Samples
(Why do you need more reputation to comment on SO than to answer?)
I am in the process of re-writing some very outdated .NET 2.0 SOAP web services for my company. So I am rewriting them using MVC3 RESTful. This method would simplify the usage of our services for our client base (over 500 clients using our current SOAP services) who are on multiple platforms and languages.
I am looking for a BETTER method of authorization for the RESTful services, than what the previous developer used for our .NET 2.0 SOAP web services (he basically just had the client pass in a GUID as a parameter and matched it in code behind).
I have looked into oAuth and I want to use it, HOWEVER, I have been told, from my superiors, that this method is TOO complicated for the "level" of clients that connect to our services and want me to find another simpler way for them to connect but still have authorization. Most of our clients have BASIC to no knowledge of programming (either we helped them get their connection setup OR they hired some kid to do it for them). This is another reason that the superiors want a different method, because we can't have all 500+ (plus 5-10 new clients a day) asking for help on how to implement oAuth.
So, is there another way to secure the MVC3 services other than passing a preset GUID?
I have looked into using Windows Authentication on the services site, but is this really logical for 500+ clients to use?
Is there an easy and secure method of authorizing multiple users on multiple platforms to use the MVC3 RESTful services that a end-client can implement very easily?
Thanks.
If you don't want anything too complicated, have a look at Basic HTTP Authentication. If you use it over SSL then it should be safe enough and also easy enough to implement for your clients. The Twitter API actually used this up until a few months ago when they switched to OAuth.
You want to distinguish between authentication and authorization. What you are looking for is authentication and indeed as Caps suggests, the easiest way may be to use HTTP BASIC authentication along with SSL to make the password is not compromised.
You could look into other means of authentication e.g. DIGEST or more advanced using ADFS or SAML (ADFS could be compelling since you're in .NET). Have a look at OpenID Connect too - it is strongly supported by Google and has great support.
Once you are done with that, you may want to consider authorization - if you need it that is - to control what a given client can do on a given resource / item / record. For that you can use claims-based authorization as provided in the .NET framework or if you need finer-grained authorization, look into XACML.
OAuth wouldn't really solve your issue since OAuth is about delegation of authorization i.e. I let Twitter write to my Facebook account on my behalf.
HTH