![]() ![]() To establish a Consumer Key and Consumer Secret. The Service Provider’s responsibility is to enable Consumer Developers The request URL query MUST NOT contain any OAuth Protocol Include query and fragment as defined by ( Berners-Lee, T., “Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax,”. The three URLs MUST include scheme, authority, and path, and MAY The URL used to exchange the User-authorized Request Token forĪn Access Token, described in Section 6.3 ( Obtaining an Access Token ). The URL used to obtain User authorization for Consumer access,ĭescribed in Section 6.2 ( Obtaining User Authorization ). In Section 6.1 ( Obtaining an Unauthorized Request Token ). The URL used to obtain an unauthorized Request Token, described #Sd4hide 1.1 verificationNo Consumer verification is needed, or when verification is achieved The Consumer Secret MAY be an empty string (for example when Inaccessible to anyone other than the Consumer and the Service ![]() Verify the Consumer identity, unless the Consumer Secret is known to be Service Providers SHOULD NOT rely on the Consumer Secret as a method to Provider to vary access levels to Consumers (such as un-throttled access Consumer-specific identification allows the Service Together authenticate the Consumer (as opposed to the User) to the OAuth includes a Consumer Key and matching Consumer Secret that Parameters with names beginning with oauth_. Resources on behalf of the User, instead of using the User’sĪ secret used by the Consumer to establish ownership of a given ).Ī web application that allows access via OAuth.Īn individual who has an account with the Service Provider.Ī website or application that uses OAuth to access the Serviceĭata controlled by the Service Provider, which the Consumer canĪn individual or organization that implements a Consumer.Ī value used by the Consumer to identify itself to the ServiceĪ secret used by the Consumer to establish ownership of theĪ value used by the Consumer to obtain authorization from the User,Ī value used by the Consumer to gain access to the Protected ).ĭomain name examples use ( Eastlake, D. “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in thisĭocument are to be interpreted as described in ( Bradner, B., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,”. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, Conlan ( Blaine Cook ( Leah Culver ( Kellan Elliott-McCrea ( Larry Halff ( Eran Hammer-Lahav ( Ben Laurie ( Chris Messina ( John Panzer ( Sam Quigley ( David Recordon ( Eran Sandler ( Jonathan Sergent ( Todd Sieling ( Brian Slesinsky ( Andy Smith ( and Conventions Proxying and Caching of Authenticated Contentĭenial of Service / Resource Exhaustion Attacks ![]() #Sd4hide 1.1 licenseCopyrights are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution –ShareAlike 3.0 license available at. This specification is made available under the OAuth Non-Assertion Covenant and Author’s Contribution License For OAuth Specification 1.0 available at. Trusted experience for both application developers and the users of Supported by large and small providers alike, promotes a consistent and Independently implemented by various websites. OAuthīuilds on existing protocols and best practices that have been Service authentication into a single, community-driven protocol. OAuth aims to unify the experience and implementation of delegated web Making the protocol ideally suited for cases where authenticationĬredentials are unavailable to the Consumer, such as with OpenID. Pattern, nor does it specify how Service Providers authenticate Users, OAuth does not require a specific user interface or interaction (the Service Provider) without requiring Users to provide their (the Consumer), to access private photos stored on More generally, OAuth creates aįreely-implementable and generic methodology for API authentication.Īn example use case is allowing printing service The OAuth protocol enables websites or applications (Consumers) toĪccess Protected Resources from a web service (Service Provider) via anĪPI, without requiring Users to disclose their Service ProviderĬredentials to the Consumers. Implementers should use RFC 6749: The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework The draft is currently pending IESG approval before publication as an RFC. ![]() The OAuth Core 1.0 Revision A specification is being obsoleted by the proposed IETF draft On June 24th, 2009 to address a session fixation attack. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |