5 min read · Mar 26, 2024
--
A Verizon study showed that 61% of data breaches involve stolen credentials, making it the most popular form of cyber attack.
In the 2000s, Blaine Cook decided enough was enough and invented OAuth (or Open Authentication); a way to authenticate user identity to counter malicious online attacks.
It has many forms, with the most popular being OAuth 1.0 and OAuth 2.0.
In this article, we will explore both authentication protocols and identify which is better for your application: OAuth 1.0 or OAuth 2.0.
OAuth 1.0 is an authorization protocol that lets you approve an application’s interaction with another without sharing your password. Instead of your password, OAuth uses authorization tokens to verify your identity. It offers you granular permission control, i.e. provide full access to certain applications while others only get read-only access.
OAuth 1.0 comprises three main components: user, consumer, & service provider. Let’s understand it using a simple example where Mike (user) wants Instagram (consumer) to share his posts on his Twitter (service provider) stream.
First, Mike will let Instagram know that he would like the application to post directly to his Twitter stream. Next, Instagram will reach out to Twitter for a request token that Mike can use to approve Instagram’s access request.
Once Instagram receives the request token, it redirects Mike to Twitter (with the request token) so he can authorize access and approve what actions Instagram can make on his behalf. Finally, Instagram will reach out to Twitter to convert its request token to an access token (with a secret) giving them the authority to post on the user’s (Mike’s) behalf.
NOTE: Tokens are accompanied by a “secret” unique to each consumer. The service provider blocks any forged requests by using the secret to verify requests are coming from the consumer.
OAuth 1.0 has grown in popularity since its inception in 2006 because it simplifies the third-party integration process considerably. But, its use continues even today because it offers so much more.
Security and access control
OAuth 1.0 lets you securely share data between applications without worrying about username and password leaks. Moreover, users authorize how much access applications have and even have the power to revoke that access at any time.
Flexibility and compatibility
OAuth 1.0 is a widely adopted security protocol, making it compatible with most applications in the market today. Also, being an open-sourced protocol, developers can create a custom authorization process to suit their needs.
Data protection
Since OAuth 1.0 doesn’t use passwords or usernames, hackers will find it harder to steal login credentials or personal info. Users can rest assured their data remains safe while accessing third-party applications.
OAuth 1.0 offers some challenges during development and implementation.
Complex signature mechanism
OAuth 1.0 uses a signature mechanism that both the consumer and service provider must use. Generating and verifying these signatures is expensive and error prone.
Token management
OAuth’s token system (request tokens, access tokens) and their associated secrets can create storage and management complexities. Moreover, diagnosing and resolving any errors is challenging.
Negative user experience
Multiple redirects and steps in the authorization process can create a confusing user experience — leading to drop-offs and negative feedback online.
To mitigate these limitations, developers created the OAuth 2.0 framework in 2012 which offered a more streamlined and flexible approach to authorization and authentication.
OAuth 2.0 is a more modern and widely adopted protocol for authentication and authorization. It completely redesigns OAuth to make it easier for developers to implement authorization processes.
It even uses different terminology. OAuth1’s consumer, service provider and user become client, authorization server, resource server and resource owner in OAuth 2.0. OAuth 2.0 is commonly used for securing API access and enabling single sign-on (SSO) between different services.
OAuth 2.0 follows a six-step process to authorize access. We’ll use the same example where Mike (resource owner) wants to allow Instagram (client) to post on his Twitter (resource server).
First, Instagram will request access to Twitter via the authorization server. Mike is sent a prompt from the authorization server to verify the authorization grant, after which the authorization grant is returned to Instagram.
Using the authorization grant, the authorization server validates the request and grants Instagram an access token to use Twitter. Now, Instagram can post on Mike’s behalf without sharing any personal credentials.
OAuth 2.0 was introduced to address OAuth’s drawback, which is also where most of the differences arise.
Non-browser application support
OAuth doesn’t work well with non-browser clients since it was designed specifically considering message interactions in web applications. OAuth 2.0 circumvents this by introducing multiple authorization paths depending on the client (desktop, mobile, living room application, etc.).
Simpler signing mechanism
As discussed earlier, OAuth requires that signatures generated at the server and endpoint be exact matches. OAuth 2.0, on the other hand, removes this requirement by using Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) to protect messages during transit.
Better security
OAuth lets you store its tokens for a year or more while OAuth 2.0 offers access tokens with a short-lived expiration date. These refresh tokens offer better security and reduce the chances of phishing. New tokens can be produced without reauthorizing.
OAuth 2.0 supports different use cases apart from the most common — third-party app authorization and authentication.
Microservices
Developers can set up an OAuth 2.0 protocol with an authorization server that can approve access tokens for individual services to access other services in the architecture.
Single Sign-on (SSO)
OAuth 2.0 allows users to sign in to an application once and use the same authorization to access other applications. When a user accesses a new application, they are redirected to an authorization server. The authorization server checks if the access token is already authenticated before allowing access to the application.
API gateways
In such applications, the API gateway itself acts as the authorization server and issues access tokens to clients. When a request is made, it checks the client’s token before pushing the request forward.
Smart devices
OAuth 2.0 streamlines the authorization flow in devices like smart TVs, refrigerators, ACs, etc. with limited input capabilities, making it harder to provide authorization.
From the facts above, it’s pretty obvious that OAuth 2.0 is the better option. However, I would argue that OAuth also can hold its own depending on where you’re applying the protocol. For example, Google moved fully to OAuth 2.0 in 2012 while Twitter still supports OAuth.
OAuth is still very viable in some cases compared to OAuth 2.0 since it offers added security apart from the TLS-based measures. Old systems using OAuth should stick to it while new systems that rely on server-to-server authorization should opt for OAuth as well. Cases where applications will benefit from non-browser support and easier development should go for OAuth 2.0.
It all comes down to the use case: which will your business benefit from, OAuth or OAuth 2.0?
OAuth 1.0 and its successor, OAuth 2.0, represent two distinct authorization and authentication approaches.
OAuth 1.0 enhanced security and user control. But it also presented certain complexities in terms of signature mechanisms and token management. Meanwhile, OAuth 2.0 offered a more adaptable authorization protocol that could be used with a broad range of applications, including non-browser clients and smart devices.
Despite these differences, OAuth 1.0 still holds its own, particularly in legacy systems. Your choice of authorization protocols should be defined by your business’s unique needs and requirements.
