I suppose the only other way to make the UX good and to keep the consumer secret absolutely hidden is to proxy all requests through a hosted server. This does come as a cost of having to pay for a server to perform the proxy work. But it's really the only option at the moment I can think of that's 100% safe.
Josh On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:35 PM, funkatron <funkat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to be a complete pill, but that is a terrible, terrible initial > experience for the average desktop app user. There is no way I would > or could reasonably ask one of my users to register an app themselves, > then fill in obscure hashes. > > The OAuth secret is simply impossible to use securely with open > source, end-user-oriented applications. My only option with Spaz, when > Twitter decides to take away basic auth, is to pray someone doesn't > decide to steal my "secret" hash. > > Compiling does make getting the key more difficult, but assuming that > desktop apps are compiled isn't a good idea -- Spaz isn't, for > example. I could obscure the code for the end user, I suppose, but > doing so seems contrary to open source philosophy, and probably just > presents a challenge. > > OAuth as-is just wasn't designed for desktop apps, period. Square peg, > round hole. If Twitter is insisting on it, I'd rather this was > portrayed as a trade-off for increased user security, than a solvable > problem -- I don't think it is. > > On Jan 30, 2:22 pm, Raffi Krikorian <ra...@twitter.com> wrote: >> what i would do is just make it clear to people who are using your open >> source client that they need to register their downloaded application with >> Twitter -- send them tohttp://twitter.com/apps/new, instruct them to fill >> out the form, and build a simple "wizard" that they can cut and paste the >> consumer token and secret into. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:29 AM, ShellEx Well <5h3l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Some project (like dabr) put key and secret in config files. >> > But I think it really suck for users who want to use my client with >> > OAuth. Because they have to get a pair of key/secret and do configure >> > themselves, and the this is not convenience for users. >> >> > So I doubt that is it a good way to use OAuth in Desktop Client. >> >> > On Jan 30, 1:35 am, Raffi Krikorian <ra...@twitter.com> wrote: >> > > the leak of a consumer secret will not result in the compromising of user >> > > accounts (the consumer secret is needed to get user secrets, but to get >> > user >> > > secrets require the user's intervention). >> >> > > however - do not put the consumer key and secret in the source of your >> > code >> > > and distribute it. instead, make it possible for your source to read the >> > > consumer key and secret from a configuration, and distribute, with your >> > > source code, a sample configuration file or a README that details how to >> > > create one. >> >> > > hope that helps. >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ShellEx Well <5h3l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > if a twitter App's Consumer key and secret were leak out, is it >> > > > possible to gain a user's access token without a user authentication >> > > > process ? >> >> > > > I am writing a opensource desktop client and has implemented OAuth for >> > > > it. However, I don't know is it suitable to put my key and secret in >> > > > the source? Are there any risks if i do that? >> >> > > > Thx :) >> >> > > -- >> > > Raffi Krikorian >> > > Twitter Platform Teamhttp://twitter.com/raffi >> >> -- >> Raffi Krikorian >> Twitter Platform Teamhttp://twitter.com/raffi >
