- ... This isn t the case, otherwise the likes of OAuth (which I mention later) wouldn t be possible. ... I think you might be missing the greater point I wasMessage 1 of 7 , Nov 29, 2012View SourceOn Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:16:50PM +0100, Erlend Hamnaberg wrote:
> This seems to indicate that a User and Acces to the API is the same.This isn't the case, otherwise the likes of OAuth (which I mention
> It is not in this case.
later) wouldn't be possible.
> Using Authorization was considered, but we need to use this for userI think you might be missing the greater point I was trying to make,
> authentication. API authorization is a different step.
> AFAIK you MAY NOT send multiple challenges back to the server.
which were that an existing mechanism already exist (RFC 2617):
> The WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers exist for this veryIn fact, is this very extensibility that OAuth is built upon. OAuth
> purpose. In fact, RFC 2617 is designed to be extensible.
might not be ideal for your particular purpose, but RFC 2617 still
exists to build upon to quite possibly do what you want.
It's possible to build an RFC 2617 auth method that could potentially
bundle multiple challenges in a single aggregate challenge. Including
multiple 'WWW-Authenticate' and 'Authorization' headers is another
Without knowing more about how your system's access management
requirements, it's hard to speculate further. I think it would be more
valuable to propose an auth method built on top of RFC 2617 to support
your requirements rather than a whole new header.
C�at � G�ibhtheach�in - k@... - http://stereochro.me/ - CF9F6473
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's
only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call
them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
-- Richard Feynman
- Hi Erlend, ... If you are looking for something along the lines of OAuth Client identifiers, you should take a look at OAuth 1 and 2 and the associatedMessage 2 of 7 , Nov 29, 2012View SourceHi Erlend,
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Erlend Hamnaberg <ngarthl@...> wrote:
> Is there anyone with experiences with implementing API Keys in their apis?
If you are looking for something along the lines of OAuth Client identifiers, you should take a look at OAuth 1 and 2 and the associated discussions.
Eran IMO is the go-to guy in that space and you should get much out of his blog
and recent projects
https://github.com/hueniverse/hawk (The README should provide a very good start).
Looking at Amazon IAM, as already suggested, is also good:
Here are good intro docs from Google:
Personally, I am most excited about OZ, because Eran's OAuth 2 criticism looks very valid when you dig into it.
> Putting the APIKey in the URI is obviously a bad idea as that leaks to every cache and intermediary. Including Apache logs.
> So it must be a new header field.
> The problem with APIKeys as such is that they are spoofable, unless they are crypographically protected somehow, so my question is:
> What do you do in your api?
> I am thinking about writing up an internet draft for a new Api-Key header field.
- ... And here s another: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shanks-http-form-authentication-00 My first I-D, posted this week. :) — Nicholas. On 29 Nov 2012, atMessage 3 of 7 , Nov 29, 2012View SourceOn 29 Nov 2012, at 12:55, Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin <k@...> wrote:
you'd end up with something similar to
Digest auth, so you might want to consider just using that unless you
can come up with something provably superior. Here's an example of an
alternative auth method:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/12/17/dive.htmlAnd here's another:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shanks-http-form-authentication-00
My first I-D, posted this week. :)
- ... +1, HTTP auth is a tragically underused part of the standard. Peter barelyenough.orgMessage 4 of 7 , Nov 29, 2012View SourceOn Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin <k@...> wrote:
> You'd be better off proposing an alternative HTTP auth method, if+1, HTTP auth is a tragically underused part of the standard.
> anything, where the client sends something like this (assuming the API
> key is a UUID):
> Authorization: Key b67570be-3a22-11e2-8ca6-0015c55d83ee