Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Supported provider list (with example code) is now: * Facebook * Google * Foursquare * bitly * GitHub * StackExchange * Instagram Other providers may also be supported out of the box, but have been untested thus far. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: Supported provider list (with example code) is now: * Facebook * Google * Foursquare * bitly * GitHub * StackExchange * Instagram Other providers may also be supported out of the box, but have been untested thus far. Looking good. Keep adding more to the list! I'd especially be interesting in seeing the 3-phase Twitter and LinkedIn auths added to the list. Also I'll be extending it a little more at some point to make it friendlier :P Thanks for merging my last pull-request, Alec Taylor -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: OAuth 2.0 implementation
No worries, thanks for the request. Unfortunately AFAIK (according to the OAuth provider list on Wikipedia), both Twitter and LinkedIn still use OAuth 1.0a, so until they hop on the OAuth 2.0 bandwagon, they won't be added. -Original Message- From: Alec Taylor [mailto:alec.tayl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:42 AM To: Demian Brecht Cc: comp.lang.pyt...@googlegroups.com; python-list@python.org Subject: Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: Supported provider list (with example code) is now: * Facebook * Google * Foursquare * bitly * GitHub * StackExchange * Instagram Other providers may also be supported out of the box, but have been untested thus far. Looking good. Keep adding more to the list! I'd especially be interesting in seeing the 3-phase Twitter and LinkedIn auths added to the list. Also I'll be extending it a little more at some point to make it friendlier :P Thanks for merging my last pull-request, Alec Taylor -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Yeah, seems Twitter is still stuck on 1.0a... But LinkedIn seems to support 1.0a for REST and 2 for JS: https://developer.linkedin.com/apis So that could be a definite contender for Sanction support On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: No worries, thanks for the request. Unfortunately AFAIK (according to the OAuth provider list on Wikipedia), both Twitter and LinkedIn still use OAuth 1.0a, so until they hop on the OAuth 2.0 bandwagon, they won't be added. -Original Message- From: Alec Taylor [mailto:alec.tayl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:42 AM To: Demian Brecht Cc: comp.lang.pyt...@googlegroups.com; python-list@python.org Subject: Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: Supported provider list (with example code) is now: * Facebook * Google * Foursquare * bitly * GitHub * StackExchange * Instagram Other providers may also be supported out of the box, but have been untested thus far. Looking good. Keep adding more to the list! I'd especially be interesting in seeing the 3-phase Twitter and LinkedIn auths added to the list. Also I'll be extending it a little more at some point to make it friendlier :P Thanks for merging my last pull-request, Alec Taylor -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
FWIW, this package has undergone a major overhaul (474 LOC down to much happier 66) and is available at https://github.com/demianbrecht/sanction. Also available from PyPI. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, this package has undergone a major overhaul (474 LOC down to much happier 66) and is available at https://github.com/demianbrecht/sanction. Also available from PyPI. Thanks for this, I've now shared it on my favourite web-framework (which unfortunately recommends Janrain) as an alternative: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/web2py/XjUEewfP5Xg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 08:19:41 UTC-7, Alec Taylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, this package has undergone a major overhaul (474 LOC down to much happier 66) and is available at https://github.com/demianbrecht/sanction. Also available from PyPI. Thanks for this, I've now shared it on my favourite web-framework (which unfortunately recommends Janrain) as an alternative: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/web2py/XjUEewfP5Xg No worries, thanks for the interest :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On 28/03/2012 1:18 AM, Roy Smith wrote: In article 7909491.0.1332826232743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbim5, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: OAuth 2.0 is still in draft status (draft 25 is the current one I believe) and yes, unfortunately every single server available at this point have varying degrees of separation from the actual spec. It's not a pseudo-standard, it's just not observed to the letter. Google is the closest and Facebook seems to be the farthest away (Stack Exchange is in close second due to building theirs to work like Facebook's). In practice, OAuth is all about getting your site to work with Facebook. That is all most web sites care about today because that's where the money is. The fact that other sites also use OAuth is of mostly academic interest at this point. The next player on the list is Twitter, and they're not even up to using their own incompatible version of OAuth 2.0. They're still using OAuth 1.0 (although, I understand, they're marching towards 2.0). Almost all social or sharing sites implement OAuth - either 1.0 or 2.0. Facebook is clearly the big winner here but not the only player. It's also used extensively by google (eg, even their SMTP server supports using OAuth credentials to send email) I'd go even further - most sites which expose an API use OAuth for credentials with that API. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com writes:
I'm getting close to an alpha release of an OAuth 2.0 implementation
(https://github.com/demianbrecht/py-sanction).
Thank you for doing this work.
As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better?
They are different, and often you need to use both.
OpenID allows web sites to authenticate someone. It is not really
useful for anything not an interactive web site. The consuming site
never gets your keys, it just gets confirmation from the provider that
the user is who they claim they are and maybe some details that the
provider chooses to provide such as an email address.
OAuth is for generating authentication keys that allow a program to
authenticate as someone and perform operations on their behalf. You
use OAuth to generate a key so that Foursquare can send messages via
Twitter on your behalf, or so the Facebook client on your phone can
access your account without storing your password. You also get
authentication here, as you can't generate a key without being
authenticated, but the real reason it is used instead of OpenID is so
you can keep the key and keep using it to act as the user; you can
keep using that key until it expires or it is revoked.
Authentication providers that don't provide a webapi just implement
OpenID. Big sites like Google and Facebook implement both OpenID (for
'log in with your GMail account') and OAuth ('post this message to
your Facebook wall').
--
Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net
http://www.stuartbishop.net/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
And then to complicate the picture you have OpenID Connect which is an attempt
at
bringing OpenID and OAuth2.0 together.
By the way I have an implementation of OpenID Connect here:
https://github.com/rohe/pyoidc
-- Roland
27 mar 2012 kl. 11:59 skrev Stuart Bishop:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com writes:
I'm getting close to an alpha release of an OAuth 2.0 implementation
(https://github.com/demianbrecht/py-sanction).
Thank you for doing this work.
As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better?
They are different, and often you need to use both.
OpenID allows web sites to authenticate someone. It is not really
useful for anything not an interactive web site. The consuming site
never gets your keys, it just gets confirmation from the provider that
the user is who they claim they are and maybe some details that the
provider chooses to provide such as an email address.
OAuth is for generating authentication keys that allow a program to
authenticate as someone and perform operations on their behalf. You
use OAuth to generate a key so that Foursquare can send messages via
Twitter on your behalf, or so the Facebook client on your phone can
access your account without storing your password. You also get
authentication here, as you can't generate a key without being
authenticated, but the real reason it is used instead of OpenID is so
you can keep the key and keep using it to act as the user; you can
keep using that key until it expires or it is revoked.
Authentication providers that don't provide a webapi just implement
OpenID. Big sites like Google and Facebook implement both OpenID (for
'log in with your GMail account') and OAuth ('post this message to
your Facebook wall').
--
Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net
http://www.stuartbishop.net/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roland
---
With anchovies there is no common ground
-- Nero Wolfe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
In article 7909491.0.1332826232743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbim5, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: OAuth 2.0 is still in draft status (draft 25 is the current one I believe) and yes, unfortunately every single server available at this point have varying degrees of separation from the actual spec. It's not a pseudo-standard, it's just not observed to the letter. Google is the closest and Facebook seems to be the farthest away (Stack Exchange is in close second due to building theirs to work like Facebook's). In practice, OAuth is all about getting your site to work with Facebook. That is all most web sites care about today because that's where the money is. The fact that other sites also use OAuth is of mostly academic interest at this point. The next player on the list is Twitter, and they're not even up to using their own incompatible version of OAuth 2.0. They're still using OAuth 1.0 (although, I understand, they're marching towards 2.0). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 07:18:26 UTC-7, Roy Smith wrote: In article 7909491.0.1332826232743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbim5, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote: OAuth 2.0 is still in draft status (draft 25 is the current one I believe) and yes, unfortunately every single server available at this point have varying degrees of separation from the actual spec. It's not a pseudo-standard, it's just not observed to the letter. Google is the closest and Facebook seems to be the farthest away (Stack Exchange is in close second due to building theirs to work like Facebook's). In practice, OAuth is all about getting your site to work with Facebook. That is all most web sites care about today because that's where the money is. The fact that other sites also use OAuth is of mostly academic interest at this point. The next player on the list is Twitter, and they're not even up to using their own incompatible version of OAuth 2.0. They're still using OAuth 1.0 (although, I understand, they're marching towards 2.0). Sure, with the initial surge of the Facebook platform, I'm sure there are many more applications that only work with Facebook. However, after the initial gold rush, I'm sure there will be more developers who see the potential power of service aggregation (and not just for feeds ;)). I know I'm one of them. Of course, a lot of these thoughts are around niche markets, but isn't that where the money is? Untapped, niche markets? That's a completely different discussion though and would obviously be quite the thread derailment. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com writes: I'm getting close to an alpha release of an OAuth 2.0 implementation (https://github.com/demianbrecht/py-sanction). Thank you for doing this work. As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better? Everything I read is targeted toward either people *implementing* OAuth, or people who use “social networking”. Nothing much for people who want to control their own identity provider (in OpenID terms). Is OAuth not possible without relying on “social networking” centralised services? Can we use OAuth services without some Google or Facebook or other gatekeeper imposing itself in the transaction? -- \ “Never use a long word when there's a commensurate diminutive | `\available.” —Stan Kelly-Bootle | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
In article 87haxahh51@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com writes: I'm getting close to an alpha release of an OAuth 2.0 implementation (https://github.com/demianbrecht/py-sanction). Thank you for doing this work. As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better? OpenID is for people who worry about things like how OpenID is different from OAuth. Oauth is for people who have no idea what OAuth is and just want to be able to log into web sites using their Facebook account. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 87haxahh51@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better? OpenID is for people who worry about things like how OpenID is different from OAuth. Oauth is for people who have no idea what OAuth is and just want to be able to log into web sites using their Facebook account. So, if I want to be free to choose an identity provider I trust, and it's not Facebook or Google or Twitter or other privacy-hostile services, how does OAuth help me do that? What can I read for how to become an OAuth user that doesn't assume I want a “social networking” provider involved in my identity transactions? -- \ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his | `\ salary depends upon his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair, | _o__) 1935 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
In article 878vimhfdp@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 87haxahh51@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: As someone who uses OpenID, what can I read about why OAuth is better? OpenID is for people who worry about things like how OpenID is different from OAuth. Oauth is for people who have no idea what OAuth is and just want to be able to log into web sites using their Facebook account. So, if I want to be free to choose an identity provider I trust, and it's not Facebook or Google or Twitter or other privacy-hostile services, how does OAuth help me do that? It doesn't. Well, in theory, it could, but in practice everybody's OAuth implementation is different enough that they don't interoperate. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 878vimhfdp@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: So, if I want to be free to choose an identity provider I trust, and it's not Facebook or Google or Twitter or other privacy-hostile services, how does OAuth help me do that? It doesn't. Well, in theory, it could, but in practice everybody's OAuth implementation is different enough that they don't interoperate. Thanks. So OAuth is a pseudo-standard that is implemented incompatibly to the extent that it doesn't actually give users the freedom to migrate their existing data and identity at will to any other OAuth implementor? -- \ “Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the | `\ frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, | _o__) it is no longer so.” —Voltaire, _Dictionnaire Philosophique_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 878vimhfdp@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: So, if I want to be free to choose an identity provider I trust, and it's not Facebook or Google or Twitter or other privacy-hostile services, how does OAuth help me do that? It doesn't. Well, in theory, it could, but in practice everybody's OAuth implementation is different enough that they don't interoperate. Thanks. So OAuth is a pseudo-standard that is implemented incompatibly to the extent that it doesn't actually give users the freedom to migrate their existing data and identity at will to any other OAuth implementor? Pretty much. It is nice that it is published as a standard at all but the standard is just whatever people are actually doing. It seems less hostile when you think of it as vigorous documentation instead of protocols set in stone. -Jack -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OAuth 2.0 implementation
On Monday, 26 March 2012 21:24:35 UTC-7, Ben Finney wrote: Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 878vimhfdp@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: So, if I want to be free to choose an identity provider I trust, and it's not Facebook or Google or Twitter or other privacy-hostile services, how does OAuth help me do that? It doesn't. Well, in theory, it could, but in practice everybody's OAuth implementation is different enough that they don't interoperate. Thanks. So OAuth is a pseudo-standard that is implemented incompatibly to the extent that it doesn't actually give users the freedom to migrate their existing data and identity at will to any other OAuth implementor? -- \ “Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the | `\ frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, | _o__) it is no longer so.” —Voltaire, _Dictionnaire Philosophique_ | Ben Finney OAuth 2.0 is the emerging standard (now passed on to IETF) to deal with providing access to protected resources. OpenID is a standard used to deal with authentication. While there is some overlap (OAuth can be used for authentication as well), the goals of the two protocols are different. OAuth 2.0 is still in draft status (draft 25 is the current one I believe) and yes, unfortunately every single server available at this point have varying degrees of separation from the actual spec. It's not a pseudo-standard, it's just not observed to the letter. Google is the closest and Facebook seems to be the farthest away (Stack Exchange is in close second due to building theirs to work like Facebook's). That was pretty much how this work was born. I wanted to be able to implement authentication and resource access over multiple providers with a single code base. So, in answer to your questions: 1) If you're only looking for a solution to authentication, OAuth is no better than OpenID. Having said that, with the apparent popularity of OAuth 2.0, more providers may support OAuth than will OpenID (however, that's just my assumption). 2) OAuth is all about centralized services in that it is how providers allow access to protected resources. Whether it's a social network or SaaS (such as Harvest: http://www.getharvest.com/), if there isn't exposure to protected resources, then OAuth becomes pointless. 3) If you're looking to implement OAuth authentication with a provider that you trust, grab the sanction source, implement said provider and send a pull request ;) 4) Data migration doesn't happen with OAuth. As the intent is to allow access to protected resources, migrating Google to say, Facebook just wouldn't happen :) Hope that makes sense and answers your questions. - Demian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
