www.john-sheehan.com
The Good and the Bad of OAuth 2.0 Authorization Implementations — John Sheehan
**Bad:** When requesting an Access Token the request will fail if you include any parameters that it is not expecting. Google does not require a `state` or `type` parameter when getting the token like some other APIs do and will give you a 400 Bad Request with an `invalid_request` error if they are included. … ### 37signals **Bad:** When you create the app you select which services you want your app to have access to but during the auth flow only one of the services is displayed. **Bad:** There’s no support for limiting access to read-only via scopes. The only option is full read/write for all of the apps selected. … ### Box **Bad:** The redirect URL settings requires HTTPS which can be difficult if you’re trying to test locally (for instance my test app runs on http://localhost:5001 which is accepted every where else). Box has informed me this will be resolved soon. **Bad:** Does not use scopes for read-only or read/write access (is configured with the application). Box has also told me they will be changing this once they have more than one scope.
Related Pain Points2件
Overwhelming OAuth 2.0 RFC complexity and fragmentation
7OAuth 2.0 is defined across 17 different RFCs covering OAuth framework, Bearer tokens, threat models, and private key JWTs. Developers must navigate this massive standard even for simple third-party-access use cases, and no two API providers implement the same subset consistently.
HTTPS-only redirect URI requirement hinders local development
4Some OAuth providers (e.g., Box) require HTTPS for redirect URIs, making it difficult or impossible to test locally with HTTP URLs like `http://localhost:5001`.