在阅读和做了一些工作后，我认为我需要知道的事情是:OpenID Connect, OAuth, JWT和SAML。

我来总结一下，可能会对大家有所帮助:

OpenID连接(OIDC):如果我们可以使用谷歌帐户登录一个网站，那么您使用的是OIDC。

OAuth:一个应用程序想要访问我的facebook联系人列表，并代表我做一些事情。如果我授权这个应用程序，那么我可能正在使用OAuth。

JWT: OAuth使用JWT, JWT (JSON Web令牌)-它只是一种令牌格式。JWT令牌是JSON编码的数据结构，包含有关发行者、主题(索赔)、到期时间等信息。对它进行签名以防止篡改和真实性，并且可以使用对称或非对称方法对它进行加密以保护令牌信息。JWT比SAML 1.1/2.0更简单，所有设备都支持它，而且它比SWT(简单Web令牌)更强大。

OAuth中的授权流程:

OAuth 2.0协议为授权用户和获取访问令牌提供了几个工作流。这取决于客户端的类型和体系结构，哪个流是最合适的。

下面是2个最常用的授权流程:

授权码:适用于包含客户端和服务器组件的第三方网站。

用户向安全登录网页输入凭据。 登录后，浏览器被重定向到一个特殊的URL(由客户端定义)，并在URL中传递一个授权代码。 第三方服务器使用授权代码在后台通过另一个HTTP请求获取访问令牌。 从https://developers.video.ibm.com/api-basics-authentication/

注意:如果你有一个前端应用程序，服务器在浏览器中设置了cookie，那么你的浏览器中已经有了cookie，可以访问该网站。

客户端凭证:开发服务器端应用程序以管理其内容或设置的用户的最佳选择。

IBM有一个很好的指南:https://developers.video.ibm.com/api-basics-authentication 要了解所有其他流的优点和缺点:这里:https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/workflow-of-oauth-2-0/

SAML:也用作openid的替代品，但它是基于xml的。因为开发人员发现OIDC更容易使用，而且它更灵活(例如，与基于xml的SAML相比，与移动应用程序一起使用更容易)，OIDC看起来将成为赢家。

OpenID连接(OIDC)与SAML:主要区别:

SAML transmits user data in XML format. OIDC transmits user data in JSON format. SAML calls the user data it sends a SAML Assertion. OIDC calls the data Claims. SAML calls the application or system the user is trying to get into the Service Provider. OIDC calls it the Relying Party. SAML is old, has more features, but OpenID is gaining more popularity as it is easier to implement, easier to use than XML based SAML But not all identity providers support OpenID or SAML, if the identity provider you want to integrate only supports SAML, then you have no choice.

想要更多OpenID vs SAML?读下面: https://www.onelogin.com/blog/real-difference-saml-oidc https://auth0.com/intro-to-iam/saml-vs-openid-connect-oidc/

想要更多吗?你可以读一下OAuth和OpenID的类比: http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/04/01/openid-versus-oauth-from-the-users-perspective/

我想谈谈这个问题的一个特定方面，如以下评论所述:

OAuth:在授予某些特性的访问权限之前，必须进行身份验证，对吗?所以OAuth =什么OpenId +授予访问某些功能?- Hassan Makarov 6月21日1:57

是的……也没有。答案很微妙，所以请耐心听我说。

当OAuth流将您重定向到目标服务(即OAuth提供者)时，您很可能需要在将令牌交还给客户机应用程序/服务之前使用该服务进行身份验证。然后，生成的令牌允许客户端应用程序代表给定用户发出请求。

注意最后一句话的一般性:具体来说，我写的是“代表给定用户”，而不是“代表您”。一个常见的错误是假设“拥有与给定用户拥有的资源交互的能力”意味着“您和目标资源的所有者是同一人”。

不要犯这样的错误。

虽然您确实使用OAuth提供者进行身份验证(例如，通过用户名和密码，或者SSL客户端证书或其他方式)，但客户端获得的回报不应该被视为身份证明。例如，在一个流中，对另一个用户的资源的访问被委托给您(通过代理，OAuth客户端)。授权并不意味着身份验证。

要处理身份验证，您可能需要研究OpenID Connect，它本质上是OAuth 2.0设置的基础之上的另一层。以下是关于OpenID Connect(在我看来)最突出的一点(来自https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/):)

OpenID Connect is an open standard published in early 2014 that defines an interoperable way to use OAuth 2.0 to perform user authentication. In essence, it is a widely published recipe for chocolate fudge that has been tried and tested by a wide number and variety of experts. Instead of building a different protocol to each potential identity provider, an application can speak one protocol to as many providers as they want to work with. Since it's an open standard, OpenID Connect can be implemented by anyone without restriction or intellectual property concerns. OpenID Connect is built directly on OAuth 2.0 and in most cases is deployed right along with (or on top of) an OAuth infrastructure. OpenID Connect also uses the JSON Object Signing And Encryption (JOSE) suite of specifications for carrying signed and encrypted information around in different places. In fact, an OAuth 2.0 deployment with JOSE capabilities is already a long way to defining a fully compliant OpenID Connect system, and the delta between the two is relatively small. But that delta makes a big difference, and OpenID Connect manages to avoid many of the pitfalls discussed above by adding several key components to the OAuth base: [...]

The document then goes on to describe (among other things) token IDs and a UserInfo endpoint. The former provides a set of claims (who you are, when the token was issued, etc, and possibly a signature to verify the authenticity of the token via a published public key without having to ask the upstream service), and the latter provides a means of e.g. asking for the user's first/last name, email, and similar bits of info, all in a standardized way (as opposed to the ad-hoc extensions to OAuth that people used before OpenID Connect standardized things).

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。

OAuth 2.0是一个安全协议。它既不是认证协议，也不是授权协议。

根据定义，身份验证回答了两个问题。

用户是谁? 用户当前是否在系统上?

OAuth 2.0具有以下授予类型

client_credentials:当一个应用程序需要与另一个应用程序交互并修改多个用户的数据时。 authorization_code:用户委托授权服务器发出access_token，客户端可以使用该token访问受保护的资源 refresh_token:当access_token过期时，可以利用刷新令牌获得一个新的access_token password:用户向调用授权服务器并接收access_token的客户机提供他们的登录凭据

这4个工具都有一个共同点，即access_token，这是一个可用于访问受保护资源的工件。

access_token没有提供“Authentication”协议必须回答的2个问题的答案。

一个解释Oauth 2.0的例子(来源:Oauth 2 in Action, Manning publications)

让我们来谈谈巧克力。我们可以用巧克力做很多甜点，包括软糖、冰淇淋和蛋糕。但是，这些都不能等同于巧克力，因为制作这种甜点还需要多种其他成分，如奶油和面包，尽管巧克力听起来像是主要成分。类似地，OAuth 2.0是巧克力，而cookie、TLS基础设施、身份提供者是提供“身份验证”功能所需的其他成分。

如果你需要身份验证，你可以使用OpenID Connect，它提供了一个“id_token”，除了access_token，它可以回答每个身份验证协议必须回答的问题。

OpenId -仅用于身份验证。

OAuth—用于身份验证和授权。授权依赖于access_token，它是JWT令牌的一部分。它可以包含用户权限的详细信息或任何有用的信息。

两者都可以依赖第三方认证提供商来维护他们的帐户。例如，OKTA身份提供者，User在OKTA登录页面上提供凭据，在成功登录时，用户被重定向到消费者应用程序，头部有JWT令牌。

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