在阅读和做了一些工作后，我认为我需要知道的事情是:OpenID Connect, OAuth, JWT和SAML。

我来总结一下，可能会对大家有所帮助:

OpenID连接(OIDC):如果我们可以使用谷歌帐户登录一个网站，那么您使用的是OIDC。

OAuth:一个应用程序想要访问我的facebook联系人列表，并代表我做一些事情。如果我授权这个应用程序，那么我可能正在使用OAuth。

JWT: OAuth使用JWT, JWT (JSON Web令牌)-它只是一种令牌格式。JWT令牌是JSON编码的数据结构，包含有关发行者、主题(索赔)、到期时间等信息。对它进行签名以防止篡改和真实性，并且可以使用对称或非对称方法对它进行加密以保护令牌信息。JWT比SAML 1.1/2.0更简单，所有设备都支持它，而且它比SWT(简单Web令牌)更强大。

OAuth中的授权流程:

OAuth 2.0协议为授权用户和获取访问令牌提供了几个工作流。这取决于客户端的类型和体系结构，哪个流是最合适的。

下面是2个最常用的授权流程:

授权码:适用于包含客户端和服务器组件的第三方网站。

用户向安全登录网页输入凭据。 登录后，浏览器被重定向到一个特殊的URL(由客户端定义)，并在URL中传递一个授权代码。 第三方服务器使用授权代码在后台通过另一个HTTP请求获取访问令牌。 从https://developers.video.ibm.com/api-basics-authentication/

注意:如果你有一个前端应用程序，服务器在浏览器中设置了cookie，那么你的浏览器中已经有了cookie，可以访问该网站。

客户端凭证:开发服务器端应用程序以管理其内容或设置的用户的最佳选择。

IBM有一个很好的指南:https://developers.video.ibm.com/api-basics-authentication 要了解所有其他流的优点和缺点:这里:https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/workflow-of-oauth-2-0/

SAML:也用作openid的替代品，但它是基于xml的。因为开发人员发现OIDC更容易使用，而且它更灵活(例如，与基于xml的SAML相比，与移动应用程序一起使用更容易)，OIDC看起来将成为赢家。

OpenID连接(OIDC)与SAML:主要区别:

SAML transmits user data in XML format. OIDC transmits user data in JSON format. SAML calls the user data it sends a SAML Assertion. OIDC calls the data Claims. SAML calls the application or system the user is trying to get into the Service Provider. OIDC calls it the Relying Party. SAML is old, has more features, but OpenID is gaining more popularity as it is easier to implement, easier to use than XML based SAML But not all identity providers support OpenID or SAML, if the identity provider you want to integrate only supports SAML, then you have no choice.

想要更多OpenID vs SAML?读下面: https://www.onelogin.com/blog/real-difference-saml-oidc https://auth0.com/intro-to-iam/saml-vs-openid-connect-oidc/

想要更多吗?你可以读一下OAuth和OpenID的类比: http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/04/01/openid-versus-oauth-from-the-users-perspective/

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。

我想谈谈这个问题的一个特定方面，如以下评论所述:

OAuth:在授予某些特性的访问权限之前，必须进行身份验证，对吗?所以OAuth =什么OpenId +授予访问某些功能?- Hassan Makarov 6月21日1:57

是的……也没有。答案很微妙，所以请耐心听我说。

当OAuth流将您重定向到目标服务(即OAuth提供者)时，您很可能需要在将令牌交还给客户机应用程序/服务之前使用该服务进行身份验证。然后，生成的令牌允许客户端应用程序代表给定用户发出请求。

注意最后一句话的一般性:具体来说，我写的是“代表给定用户”，而不是“代表您”。一个常见的错误是假设“拥有与给定用户拥有的资源交互的能力”意味着“您和目标资源的所有者是同一人”。

不要犯这样的错误。

虽然您确实使用OAuth提供者进行身份验证(例如，通过用户名和密码，或者SSL客户端证书或其他方式)，但客户端获得的回报不应该被视为身份证明。例如，在一个流中，对另一个用户的资源的访问被委托给您(通过代理，OAuth客户端)。授权并不意味着身份验证。

要处理身份验证，您可能需要研究OpenID Connect，它本质上是OAuth 2.0设置的基础之上的另一层。以下是关于OpenID Connect(在我看来)最突出的一点(来自https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/):)

OpenID Connect is an open standard published in early 2014 that defines an interoperable way to use OAuth 2.0 to perform user authentication. In essence, it is a widely published recipe for chocolate fudge that has been tried and tested by a wide number and variety of experts. Instead of building a different protocol to each potential identity provider, an application can speak one protocol to as many providers as they want to work with. Since it's an open standard, OpenID Connect can be implemented by anyone without restriction or intellectual property concerns. OpenID Connect is built directly on OAuth 2.0 and in most cases is deployed right along with (or on top of) an OAuth infrastructure. OpenID Connect also uses the JSON Object Signing And Encryption (JOSE) suite of specifications for carrying signed and encrypted information around in different places. In fact, an OAuth 2.0 deployment with JOSE capabilities is already a long way to defining a fully compliant OpenID Connect system, and the delta between the two is relatively small. But that delta makes a big difference, and OpenID Connect manages to avoid many of the pitfalls discussed above by adding several key components to the OAuth base: [...]

The document then goes on to describe (among other things) token IDs and a UserInfo endpoint. The former provides a set of claims (who you are, when the token was issued, etc, and possibly a signature to verify the authenticity of the token via a published public key without having to ask the upstream service), and the latter provides a means of e.g. asking for the user's first/last name, email, and similar bits of info, all in a standardized way (as opposed to the ad-hoc extensions to OAuth that people used before OpenID Connect standardized things).

有三种方法可以比较OAuth和OpenID:

1. 目的

OpenID是为联邦身份验证而创建的，也就是说，允许第三方使用用户已经拥有的帐户为您验证用户身份。联合这个术语在这里非常重要，因为OpenID的全部意义在于可以使用任何提供者(白名单除外)。你不需要预先选择或与提供商协商协议，以允许用户使用他们拥有的任何其他帐户。

OAuth的创建是为了消除用户与第三方应用程序共享密码的需要。它实际上是作为解决OpenID问题的一种方式开始的:如果您在站点上支持OpenID，则不能使用HTTP基本凭据(用户名和密码)来提供API，因为用户在站点上没有密码。

The problem is with this separation of OpenID for authentication and OAuth for authorization is that both protocols can accomplish many of the same things. They each provide a different set of features which are desired by different implementations but essentially, they are pretty interchangeable. At their core, both protocols are an assertion verification method (OpenID is limited to the 'this is who I am' assertion, while OAuth provides an 'access token' that can be exchanged for any supported assertion via an API).

2. 特性

这两种协议都为站点提供了一种方法，可以将用户重定向到其他地方，然后返回一个可验证的断言。OpenID提供身份断言，而OAuth以访问令牌的形式更为通用，可用于“向OAuth提供者询问问题”。但是，它们各自支持不同的特性:

OpenID - the most important feature of OpenID is its discovery process. OpenID does not require hard coding each the providers you want to use ahead of time. Using discovery, the user can choose any third-party provider they want to authenticate. This discovery feature has also caused most of OpenID's problems because the way it is implemented is by using HTTP URIs as identifiers which most web users just don't get. Other features OpenID has is its support for ad-hoc client registration using a DH exchange, immediate mode for optimized end-user experience, and a way to verify assertions without making another round-trip to the provider.

OAuth - the most important feature of OAuth is the access token which provides a long lasting method of making additional requests. Unlike OpenID, OAuth does not end with authentication but provides an access token to gain access to additional resources provided by the same third-party service. However, since OAuth does not support discovery, it requires pre-selecting and hard-coding the providers you decide to use. A user visiting your site cannot use any identifier, only those pre-selected by you. Also, OAuth does not have a concept of identity so using it for login means either adding a custom parameter (as done by Twitter) or making another API call to get the currently "logged in" user.

3.技术的实现

这两种协议在使用重定向获取用户授权方面具有共同的架构。在OAuth中，用户授权访问他们受保护的资源，在OpenID中，用户授权访问他们的身份。但这就是他们所有的共同点。

每个协议都有不同的方法来计算用于验证请求或响应的真实性的签名，并且每个协议都有不同的注册要求。

OpenId -仅用于身份验证。

OAuth—用于身份验证和授权。授权依赖于access_token，它是JWT令牌的一部分。它可以包含用户权限的详细信息或任何有用的信息。

两者都可以依赖第三方认证提供商来维护他们的帐户。例如，OKTA身份提供者，User在OKTA登录页面上提供凭据，在成功登录时，用户被重定向到消费者应用程序，头部有JWT令牌。

我目前正在研究OAuth 2.0和OpenID连接规范。以下是我的理解: 之前他们是:

OpenID was proprietary implementation of Google allowing third party applications like for newspaper websites you can login using google and comment on an article and so on other usecases. So essentially, no password sharing to newspaper website. Let me put up a definition here, this approach in enterprise approach is called Federation. In Federation, You have a server where you authenticate and authorize (called IDP, Identity Provider) and generally the keeper of User credentials. the client application where you have business is called SP or Service Provider. If we go back to same newspaper website example then newspaper website is SP here and Google is IDP. In enterprise this problem was earlier solved using SAML. that time XML used to rule the software industry. So from webservices to configuration, everything used to go to XML so we have SAML, a complete Federation protocol OAuth: OAuth saw it's emergence as an standard looking at all these kind of proprietary approaches and so we had OAuth 1.o as standard but addressing only authorization. Not many people noticed but it kind of started picking up. Then we had OAuth 2.0 in 2012. CTOs, Architects really started paying attention as world is moving towards Cloud computing and with computing devices moving towards mobile and other such devices. OAuth kind of looked upon as solving major problem where software customers might give IDP Service to one company and have many services from different vendors like salesforce, SAP, etc. So integration here really looks like federation scenario bit one big problem, using SAML is costly so let's explore OAuth 2.o. Ohh, missed one important point that during this time, Google sensed that OAuth actually doesn't address Authentication, how will IDP give user data to SP (which is actually wonderfully addressed in SAML) and with other loose ends like: a. OAuth 2.o doesn't clearly say, how client registration will happen b. it doesn't mention anything about the interaction between SP (Resource Server) and client application (like Analytics Server providing data is Resource Server and application displaying that data is Client)

从技术上讲，这里已经给出了很好的答案，我想到了给出简要的进化观点