specifications - How does OpenID delegation work on the Relying Party? Have the specs changed recently? -


Consider this scenario is my own website, that I use as my identifier, but I have a third Use the party's open-end provider (Yahoo in my case), as described, login to the Release Party (RP) websites on such Stackworflow and Sourceform.

It seemed like an intelligent trick:

  • I'm not closing with an open-end provider, because if Yahoo! will no longer offer the service, or its I will start charging for them, or I will not believe them now, I can switch the provider without painting
  • I have the financial, administrative, to install and maintain an open-end provider on my server And there is no security burden

Rsn

How to RP should work? My understanding is that the identifier should provide I , and the provider (Yahoo) should use only for authentication (and not for identification). Is that right? Recently there was some change? Just to be clear, I mean that my identity will not be

and

(this is where my website is "redirected" form of authentication

Side note

I also ask this question because the things are broken now (they were exactly fine a few months back). I try to log in on stackworflow, so I write mysite.com url, I get it right here on the website "redirection "I am the one to whom I log in, it asks me if I want to" continue on the Stackflow ", I say Yes, this" Redirect "and at the StakeVerf Flow site, I think" It's an OpenID Which we have not seen before ", it shows my Yahoo ID and I'm actually locked!

Is this a bug, or am I missing something?

EDIT: My answer in the answer given below is correct with Andrew Arnet The recommended way to do (i.e. switching to a different provider) But I still have an interest in some details: What has changed about the delegation in OpenID 1.1 to 2.0? Why is it chosen to give the "brake" delegation to the provider in glasses? The more you understand, the better, the more acceptable your answer is.

I believe Andrew's answer is quite right. The only thing I can add is a little bit about how the v2.0 imagination was eliminated, allowing the provider to not work with the delegation. I think there was a server-guided identity selection from the motivator, in which the user provides "yahoo.com" (or clicks on the Yahoo button), and then returns the ID selected by the server to the ID_res response. It also allows the server to do things like provide an option to select an ID (Yahoo does) or send a unique identifier to each RP (as Google does).

It also means that all required information is in a id_res response, which means that to process RP response to the state, your checkid No need to store from the request. In fact, a provider can send a id_res response to RP, RP can start with no checkid request.

A v1. The delegation was getting in the evening when the X provider was completely unaware. This design prevented a provider from choosing not to support the delegation, but also created for some UI problems; It would be asking if you wanted to provide the "joe.coolprovider.com" ID when you were actually using your "joesmith.org" id.

Therefore, the delegation is still possible, so it was hoped that the users who are actually going to be dwarf based on the number of users from the delegation (who face it, these large sites) are those providers You can choose who they need. (In other words, exit the market.)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

python - Overriding the save method in Django ModelForm -

html - CSS autoheight, but fit content to height of div -

qt - How to prevent QAudioInput from automatically boosting the master volume to 100%? -