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

OAuth

仅用于委托授权——这意味着您授权第三方服务访问使用个人数据，而无需提供密码。此外，OAuth“会话”通常比用户会话存活更久。这意味着OAuth被设计为允许授权

例如，Flickr使用OAuth允许第三方服务发布和编辑个人照片，而不需要他们提供自己的flicker用户名和密码。

OpenID

用于验证单点登录身份。所有OpenID应该做的就是允许OpenID提供者证明你说你是。然而，许多站点使用身份验证来提供授权(然而，这两者可以分开)

也就是说，一个人在机场出示护照，以证明他们所使用的机票上的人就是他们自己。

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。

OAuth返回访问令牌，用于从资源服务器访问资源，OpenID返回JWT /加密令牌中关于资源的元数据细节

OpenID是关于身份验证的。证明你是谁)，OAuth是关于授权(即。授予对功能/数据等的访问权。而不必处理原始的身份验证)。

OAuth可以在外部合作伙伴站点中使用，允许访问受保护的数据，而无需重新对用户进行身份验证。

博客文章“从用户的角度看OpenID与OAuth”从用户的角度对两者进行了简单的比较，而“OAuth-OpenID:如果你认为它们是同一件事，你就找错了对象”有更多的信息。