更多的是对问题的延伸而不是答案，但它可能会为上面伟大的技术答案增加一些视角。我是一个在很多领域都很有经验的程序员，但是在网页编程方面完全是个新手。现在尝试使用Zend框架构建一个基于web的应用程序。

Definitely will implement an application-specific basic username/password authentication interface, but recognize that for a growing number of users the thought of yet another username and password is a deterrent. While not exactly social networking, I know that a very large percentage of the application's potential users already have facebook or twitter accounts. The application doesn't really want or need to access information about the user's account from those sites, it just wants to offer the convenience of not requiring the user to set up new account credentials if they don't want to. From a functionality point of view, that would seem a poster child for OpenID. But it seems that neither facebook nor twitter are OpenID providers as such, though they do support OAuth authentication to access their user's data.

在我读过的所有关于这两者及其区别的文章中，直到我看到上面Karl Anderson的观察，“OAuth可以用于身份验证，这可以被认为是一种无操作授权”，我才看到任何明确的确认OAuth足以满足我想要做的事情。

In fact, when I went to post this "answer", not being a member at the time, I looked long and hard at the bottom of this page at the options for identifying myself. The option for using an OpenID login or obtaining one if I didn't have one, but nothing about twitter or facebook, seemed to suggest that OAuth wasn't adequate for the job. But then I opened another window and looked for the general signup process for stackoverflow - and lo and behold there's a slew of 3rd-party authentication options including facebook and twitter. In the end I decided to use my google id (which is an OpenID) for exactly the reason that I didn't want to grant stackoverflow access to my friends list and anything else facebook likes to share about its users - but at least it's a proof point that OAuth is adequate for the use I had in mind.

It would really be great if someone could either post info or pointers to info about supporting this kind of multiple 3rd-part authorization setup, and how you deal with users that revoke authorization or lose access to their 3rd party site. I also get the impression that my username here identifies a unique stackoverflow account that I could access with basic authentication if I wanted to set it up, and also access this same account through other 3rd-party authenticators (e.g. so that I would be considered logged in to stackoverflow if I was logged in to any of google, facebook, or twitter...). Since this site is doing it, somebody here probably has some pretty good insight on the subject. :-)

很抱歉这篇文章写了这么长时间，而且更多的是一个问题而不是一个答案——但是Karl的评论似乎是在OAuth和OpenID上大量的帖子中最合适的地方。如果我没有找到更好的地方，我提前道歉，我确实试过了。

OpenId使用OAuth来处理身份验证。

通过类比，就像。net依赖于Windows API。你可以直接调用Windows API，但是它太宽了，太复杂了，方法参数太大了，你很容易犯错误/bug /安全问题。

OpenId/OAuth也是如此。OpenId依赖于OAuth来管理身份验证，但定义了特定的令牌(Id_token)、数字签名和特定的流。

更多的是对问题的延伸而不是答案，但它可能会为上面伟大的技术答案增加一些视角。我是一个在很多领域都很有经验的程序员，但是在网页编程方面完全是个新手。现在尝试使用Zend框架构建一个基于web的应用程序。

Definitely will implement an application-specific basic username/password authentication interface, but recognize that for a growing number of users the thought of yet another username and password is a deterrent. While not exactly social networking, I know that a very large percentage of the application's potential users already have facebook or twitter accounts. The application doesn't really want or need to access information about the user's account from those sites, it just wants to offer the convenience of not requiring the user to set up new account credentials if they don't want to. From a functionality point of view, that would seem a poster child for OpenID. But it seems that neither facebook nor twitter are OpenID providers as such, though they do support OAuth authentication to access their user's data.

在我读过的所有关于这两者及其区别的文章中，直到我看到上面Karl Anderson的观察，“OAuth可以用于身份验证，这可以被认为是一种无操作授权”，我才看到任何明确的确认OAuth足以满足我想要做的事情。

In fact, when I went to post this "answer", not being a member at the time, I looked long and hard at the bottom of this page at the options for identifying myself. The option for using an OpenID login or obtaining one if I didn't have one, but nothing about twitter or facebook, seemed to suggest that OAuth wasn't adequate for the job. But then I opened another window and looked for the general signup process for stackoverflow - and lo and behold there's a slew of 3rd-party authentication options including facebook and twitter. In the end I decided to use my google id (which is an OpenID) for exactly the reason that I didn't want to grant stackoverflow access to my friends list and anything else facebook likes to share about its users - but at least it's a proof point that OAuth is adequate for the use I had in mind.

It would really be great if someone could either post info or pointers to info about supporting this kind of multiple 3rd-part authorization setup, and how you deal with users that revoke authorization or lose access to their 3rd party site. I also get the impression that my username here identifies a unique stackoverflow account that I could access with basic authentication if I wanted to set it up, and also access this same account through other 3rd-party authenticators (e.g. so that I would be considered logged in to stackoverflow if I was logged in to any of google, facebook, or twitter...). Since this site is doing it, somebody here probably has some pretty good insight on the subject. :-)

很抱歉这篇文章写了这么长时间，而且更多的是一个问题而不是一个答案——但是Karl的评论似乎是在OAuth和OpenID上大量的帖子中最合适的地方。如果我没有找到更好的地方，我提前道歉，我确实试过了。

OpenID和OAuth都是用于身份验证和/或授权的基于http的协议。两者都旨在允许用户执行操作，而无需向客户端或第三方提供身份验证凭据或全面权限。虽然它们是相似的，并且有建议将它们一起使用的标准，但它们是单独的协议。

OpenID用于联合身份验证。客户机接受来自任何提供者的身份断言(尽管客户机可以自由地将提供者列入白名单或黑名单)。

OAuth用于委托授权。客户端向提供者注册，提供者提供授权令牌，客户端接受这些授权令牌以代表用户执行操作。

OAuth目前更适合于授权，因为身份验证后的进一步交互被内置到协议中，但这两个协议都在不断发展。OpenID及其扩展可用于授权，OAuth可用于身份验证，可以将其视为无操作授权。

OAuth返回访问令牌，用于从资源服务器访问资源，OpenID返回JWT /加密令牌中关于资源的元数据细节

创建这两个协议的原因不同。创建OAuth是为了授权第三方访问资源。创建OpenID是为了执行分散的身份验证。本网站说明如下:

OAuth是一种用于验证终端用户身份并向第三方授予权限的协议。这个验证的结果是一个令牌。第三方可以使用这个令牌来代表用户访问资源。令牌有一个作用域。作用域用于验证用户是否可以访问某个资源

OpenID是用于分散身份验证的协议。认证是关于身份的;确定用户实际上就是他所声称的那个人。去中心化意味着该服务不知道需要保护的任何资源或应用程序的存在。这就是OAuth和OpenID之间的关键区别。