Re^3: PerlMonks OpenID provider?by b10m (Vicar)
|on Sep 23, 2008 at 15:22 UTC||Need Help??|
"Flippantly calling people "haters" because they see legitimate flaws in something you like is as offensive and juvenile as calling people "fanbois" because they see legitimate benefits in something you dislike."
Oh relax. I was merely referring to the first comments that used the "hate" stigma. In fact, I'm tremendously interested in the arguments against OpenID and you raise valid concerns. And for the record, I'm not a "fanboi", I'm stuck in the middle, slightly in favour, cause at this point, I don't see many obstacles.
"The difference between OpenID and independent authentication is that if PM was compromised as an independent site, just PM is affected. If it was compromised as an OpenID provider, then everyone who accepts its authentication information is affected until the situation is noticed."
Here you have a valid concern. The single point of failure isn't nice, I fully agree. Yet I don't hear these concerns too often with, e.g. SSH's authorized_keys. Other single points of failure are of course one password for all sites (happens too often), one mail account signing up (so compromising the mailbox could potentially help one access many other sites), stored passwords in browsers etc.
A positive thing would be that OpenID could take away the threshold of people signing up to sites, like Perlmonks (if it'd start accepting it, rather than offering provider services). Granted, if Perlmonks would only offer the provider service, this argument makes close to no sense.
I haven't looked at the OpenID specs in close detail, but do seem to remember you can also delegate the provider service. (ah, it indeed is possible). Maybe that would be an option for Perlmonks then (?). A small adjustment to the home node would seem enough. This would take away the increased risk of attacks on this site; the bandwidth increase would be minimal and it'd still offer the OP a way to authenticate using his/her Perlmonks homenode.