[OpenID] Delegation leading to new accounts on websites

[Andrew Arnott]

Just a guess that sourceforge probably worked because its OpenID support is
old and buggy (no offense, anyone!) and if it only does OpenID 1.x, then RPs
in that version did their own delegation management instead of giving the
OPs a chance to change it.
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre


2009/6/23 Tom Edwards <t_edwards at btinternet.com>

>  I've tried both delegation URLs on several sites, but the only one that
> recognises me as steamreview.org in either scenario is SourceForge. The
> others I tried are:
>
>    - getsatisfaction.com
>    - pbworks.com
>    - wishlistr.com
>    - stackoverflow.com
>
> These all thought I was flickr.com/blah/ or yahoo.com/blah/ - I was only
> steamreview.org when delegating to <http://steamreview.org/openid/><http://steamreview.org/openid/>
> .
>
> Yahoo only supports OpenID 2 while my server (PhpMyID) only supports OpenID
> 1. Could this be making a difference?
>
> This process would be a lot more reliable if the openidenabled.com test
> suite was working. :-(
>
>
> Allen Tom wrote:
>
> Hi John -
>
> Your description accurately describes how the Yahoo OP is implemented, and
> it is the RP's responsibility to keep track of the user's URL that was
> delegated to the OP.
>
> One possible possible issue is that Flickr itself delegates to Yahoo, so
> users are probably better off delegating to their default machine generated
> Yahoo OpenID (of the form https://me.yahoo.com/a/<random string>) than to
> to their Flickr Photos url.
>
> Tom - can you try delegating your personal URL to your default Yahoo
> OpenID? This will eliminate the extra round trip to Flickr, which is
> probably causing your problem.  The easiest way to find out what your Yahoo
> OpenID is to go here:
>
> http://openid.yahoo.com/
> Click Get Started
> Type in your password
> and take a look at the identifiers at the bottom of the screen.
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to work on GetSatisfaction. :/
> Allen
>
>
>
> John Bradley wrote:
>
> George,
>  The combination of directed identity is still a real interop issue
> because it is not well explained in openID 2.0.
>
>  When the claimed_id (less fragment)  or the identity are different in the
> response from the request the RP must rediscover the openid.claimed_id.
>
>  If delegation was done the openid.identity must match the LocalID in the
> XRD.
>
>  If the RP doesn't do this step anyone with a Yahoo account can log into
> any openID that is delegated to Yahoo.
>
>  Yahoo is following the spec as intended.
>
>  There is an OSIS test for RPs to check if they are vulnerable to this.
>
>  If the second discovery verifies then 1 can still be used safely as the
> users identifier.
>
>  I had to sit Johnny Bufu down to explain it to me what they intended when
> they wrote 2.0.
>
>  I couldn't extract the logic from the spec itself for the delegating to a
> directed identity flow.
>
>  John B.
>
>  On 22-Jun-09, at 11:45 AM, general-request at openid.net wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:44:03 -0400
> From: George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Delegation leading to new accounts on websites
> To: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>
> Cc: "general at openid.net" <general at openid.net>
> Message-ID: <4A3FA6C3.9060305 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Isn't one of the underlying issues the fact that there are really 3
> identifiers in this scenario?
> 1. the identifier entered by the user (claimed_id or i-name)
> 2. the discovered/resolved identifier ("local_id" or "i-number")
> 3. the identifier returned by the OP
>
> In the case of OpenID 2.0 protocol flow, the RP has to remember #1 and
> send #2 as the openid.identity parameter. If the OP does NOT return
> openid.identity == #2, then the OP has chosen to do directed identity
> regardless of the request and the RP must throw out #1 and take #3 as
> the user's identifier.
>
> This causes some weird user experience issues, but this is what we ran
> into when implementing OpenID 2.0 Relying Party support.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing listgeneral at openid.nethttp://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090623/0873dace/attachment.htm>