Tell me more ×
Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Background: I am trying to create an SMS API service. The developers have a Dev ID, and an API secret key assigned to their developer account. The developers will be creating apps which will issue calls to my API. But the application issuing the call must be verified first.

Issue: The main issue i have is with authentication. I read up on OAuth and pretty much uderstood it. I read through this presentation (Slide 71-82). All OAuth articles talk about the OAuth 'dance' or the 'love triangle'. My problem seems to be, that i dont see a proper triangle in my case. Or, a better way to put it would be, the triangle doesn't seem to be complete.

What i mean by that is, in the case of lets say, LinkedIn, trying to make some app which helps users associate their LinkedIn acc with twitter, OAuth makes complete sense. Because LinkedIn needs to get resources from twitter ON THE USERS BEHALF (Cuz the user HAS A TWITTER ACCOUNT). In my case, only the consumer has a developer account registered with my service. The end-user doesn't have any credentials for the consumer to ask on behalf of. So how can i implement Oauth? So what will the consumer ask the provider? Will it only state that "watch out, here i come?". Cuz that seems pretty pointless unless its asking for a request token in exchange for an access token. But in this case since the end user doesnt even have an account, the steps seem useless.

So, i cant figure out how to go about this authentication issue. Ive tried thinking about using php sessions so it can help me associate a token with the particular client who is using the API. But the REST/OAUTH purists seem to disagree on the usage of sessions in authentication. They claim that OAuth is a standard which has proven itself and that is what I should use instead of coming up with my own obscure schemes.

share|improve this question
sorry about adding the PHP in the title... – redskins80 May 26 '12 at 17:52

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote

From your description it seem that you're in a two party scenario only (developers write code which accesses your API on their own behalf, not on behalf of an end-user), so that means indeed that doing the full 3-legged oAuth scenario isn't needed.

You could use pretty much any authentication scheme and that would work (API Keys, other oAuth grant types [see below] or even ID/Secret combinations. In the oAuth world:

  • Look at the other oAuth 2.0 Grant types: especially resource owner PW grants - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26#section-4.3. It's slightly better than username-password because the PW isn't passed across the channel all the time (it passes once though) and it assumes the developer writing the code is the owner of the credentials.

  • Look at oAuth v1.0: this different in various ways to v2.0 but one feature it does have which some people like is the way tokens are used - which is rather than being passed across the wire they are used to generate a hash in the client and then the hash is verified on the server side. It's more expensive and complex than checking a key but it's less prone to attack.

In the non-oAuth world, if it's primarily a server resource used by developers directly, an ID/Secret or API-Key pattern is probably more than sufficient and it's much easier to implement for your developers.

Re: oAuth - if you're doing any type of user auth then definitely stick with the standard - the stuff is complex and having libraries out there really helps. If it's developer-api you likely don't need to go that far.

If you want the API to be secure in an ideal world anything which requires the security token to pass across the gaps should be secured using SSL, especially if that client code could be running on a mobile device or laptop which might communicate over wireless. If this isn't the case, someone could jump in an copy a token from one of the devs.

The only one of the protocols above that avoids this is the oAuth 1.0 variation since the secret never leaves the client but is used to hash instead. But it's complex. Last one to look at is the Amazon AWS pattern which does hashing similar to oAuth 1.0 http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html and people emulate quite a bit.

share|improve this answer
thanks for the response! thats a lot to consider for me.. ill read up on wht youve mentioned and get back to you. Thanks again! – redskins80 May 27 '12 at 15:09

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.