现在OpenID连接是最相关的，所以我将解释OpenID连接和OAuth 2之间的区别。

OpenID connect指定IDToken标准:https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#IDToken

这是OpenID连接的主要贡献。因此，它指定了身份验证完成后响应中应该包含的内容。

IDToken需要是JWT令牌，并包含用户的信息，如用户id、用户名等。返回的信息取决于授权时传递的请求。它还包含令牌的过期日期，并且应该包含令牌的数字签名。此签名用于使用公钥验证令牌。

第二大差异与公钥有关。OpenID连接使用所谓的发现或众所周知的端点。它是一个公开开放的端点，只返回一个带有公钥和授权端点等值的JSON。

https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#SelfIssuedDiscovery

因此OpenID本质上是与身份验证相关的，因为它指定了IDToken，这是通过检查数字签名和IDToken的过期日期来验证用户身份所必需的。

OAuth处理授权，特别是与作用域和验证资源服务器上的访问令牌相关的授权。

但是，正如这里所写的，OpenID使用OAuth 2授权进行身份验证。

https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#AuthRequest

身份验证请求是OAuth 2.0授权请求，它请求授权服务器对最终用户进行身份验证。

简而言之，尝试将OpenID视为使用JWT令牌的身份验证，将OAuth视为具有作用域的授权。

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。

OpenID证明你是谁。

OAuth授予对授权方提供的特性的访问权。

很多人仍然访问这个网站，这里有一个非常简单的图表来解释它

礼貌维基百科

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。

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