If you use this product, we'll add it to your dashboard. If you work for the company that makes this product, we'll connect you with other employees. Got it, thanks!
How does OAuth compare with ticket granting services like Kerberos?
I understand that OAuth is like the ticket granting service (TGS) in Kerberos.
What about the other parts? Can OAuth be organized into domains?
Can TGS be delegated, in addition to primary services?
Are the threat models the same? Are the protection models the same?
If the comparison hasn't been made, does anyone think it is worthwhile to study this?
How would I sign a request if it contains a file upload parameter, that in my case could be 100+ MB?
Does the specification (or an extension of it) support specifying parameters that do not need to be part of the signature so the server can ignore them?
I have an application for which I'm adding an API. OAuth seems like a good idea as there are libraries around the place already. However, I don't need the token exchange and end-user verification. If the consumer gives me the right key for the provided signature, then that's as far as I need to go.
It seems that the 'request token' part of the process is as far as I need to go so long as I can add other request variables into it.
That I found licensing on the specification. That should be on the spec itself - and it would be great to see it on the site too.
I don't care about the non-assertion -- I just care about the spec. The placement of the specification under that Creative Commons license is imperative so that people can legally redistribute the spec for reference.
I understand that OpenID provides a way for a user to provide a distributed authentication mechanism, which OAuth covers as well. I also believe that OAuth goes further in some respects by documenting things that OpenID leaves up to the providers. Is this accurate?
Are there any other ways that these two systems compare and contrast?