一个主要的区别是cookie服从同源策略，而令牌则不是。这就产生了各种各样的下游效应。

由于cookie只发送给特定的主机，该主机必须承担验证用户身份的责任，用户必须在该主机上创建一个具有安全数据的帐户，以便进行验证。

Tokens on the other hand are issued and are not subject to same origin policy. The issuer can be literally anybody and it is up to the host to decide which issuers to trust. An issuer like Google and Facebook is typically well trusted so a host can shift the burden of authenticating the user (including storing all user security data) to another party and the user can consolidate their personal data under a specific issuer and not have to remember a bunch of different passwords for each host they interact with.

这允许单点登录场景，从而减少用户体验中的整体摩擦。从理论上讲，网络也变得更加安全，因为专门的身份提供者出现了，提供认证服务，而不是每个ma和pa网站都有自己的，可能不成熟的认证系统。随着这些提供商的出现，为非常基本的资源提供安全网络资源的成本也趋向于零。

因此，总的来说，令牌减少了与提供身份验证相关的摩擦和成本，并将安全web各个方面的负担转移到能够更好地实现和维护安全系统的中心化方。

Tokens need to be stored somewhere (local/session storage or cookies) Tokens can expire like cookies, but you have more control Local/session storage won't work across domains, use a marker cookie Preflight requests will be sent on each CORS request When you need to stream something, use the token to get a signed request It's easier to deal with XSS than XSRF The token gets sent on every request, watch out its size If you store confidential info, encrypt the token JSON Web Tokens can be used in OAuth Tokens are not silver bullets, think about your authorization use cases carefully

http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/27/ten-things-you-should-know-about-tokens-and-cookies/

http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/

我认为这里有些混乱。基于cookie的身份验证与HTML5 Web Storage之间的显著区别在于，浏览器被构建为每当从设置它们的域请求资源时都发送cookie数据。如果不关掉cookie，你无法阻止这种情况。除非页面中的代码发送数据，否则浏览器不会从Web存储发送数据。页面只能访问自己存储的数据，而不能访问其他页面存储的数据。

因此，如果用户担心自己的cookie数据可能被谷歌或Facebook使用，可能会关闭cookie。但是，他们没有理由关闭网络存储(直到广告商也找到一种方法来使用它)。

所以，这就是基于cookie和基于令牌的区别，后者使用Web存储。

使用Token时…

需要联邦。例如，您希望使用一个提供者(令牌分发器)作为令牌颁发者，然后使用api服务器作为令牌验证器。应用程序可以向令牌分发器进行身份验证，接收令牌，然后将该令牌提交给api服务器进行验证。(同样适用于谷歌登录。或贝宝。或Salesforce.com。等)

Asynchrony is required. For example, you want the client to send in a request, and then store that request somewhere, to be acted on by a separate system "later". That separate system will not have a synchronous connection to the client, and it may not have a direct connection to a central token dispensary. a JWT can be read by the asynchronous processing system to determine whether the work item can and should be fulfilled at that later time. This is, in a way, related to the Federation idea above. Be careful here, though: JWT expire. If the queue holding the work item does not get processed within the lifetime of the JWT, then the claims should no longer be trusted.

客户需要签署请求。在这里，请求由客户端使用他的私钥签署，服务器将使用客户端已经注册的公钥进行验证。

一个主要的区别是cookie服从同源策略，而令牌则不是。这就产生了各种各样的下游效应。

由于cookie只发送给特定的主机，该主机必须承担验证用户身份的责任，用户必须在该主机上创建一个具有安全数据的帐户，以便进行验证。

Tokens on the other hand are issued and are not subject to same origin policy. The issuer can be literally anybody and it is up to the host to decide which issuers to trust. An issuer like Google and Facebook is typically well trusted so a host can shift the burden of authenticating the user (including storing all user security data) to another party and the user can consolidate their personal data under a specific issuer and not have to remember a bunch of different passwords for each host they interact with.

这允许单点登录场景，从而减少用户体验中的整体摩擦。从理论上讲，网络也变得更加安全，因为专门的身份提供者出现了，提供认证服务，而不是每个ma和pa网站都有自己的，可能不成熟的认证系统。随着这些提供商的出现，为非常基本的资源提供安全网络资源的成本也趋向于零。

因此，总的来说，令牌减少了与提供身份验证相关的摩擦和成本，并将安全web各个方面的负担转移到能够更好地实现和维护安全系统的中心化方。

简而言之:

JWT vs Cookie Auth

|                    | Cookie        | JWT                             |
| Stateless          | No            | Yes                             |
| Cross domain usage | No            | Yes                             |
| Mobile ready       | No            | Yes                             |
| Performance        | Low           | High (no need in request to DB) |
| Add to request     | Automatically | Manually (if not in cookie)     |