Here's an article about fun bot makers leaving Twitter. Both @aparrish and I are interested in it. https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/twitters-new-developer-guidelines-might-end-fun-bot-accounts.html
WeChat ID
aaronpk_tv
-
Andy Baio
https://xoxo.zone/@andybaio
•
Aug 8
Is there any way to post a message SOLELY to your local timeline? That would be pretty cool.
I was actually just thinking the same thing but addressing a specific server. I wanted to say hi to all the xoxo.zone people but my account is on my own website! -
Shoutout to @indiewebcamp #indieweb from @jeckman. Smaller communities like this pushing for an open web. They need help bridging the gap w/ non-technical users. #wcpub
-
Khor
https://twitter.com/neth_6
•
Aug 8
The link you shared is for Implicit? Implicit does not use client secret. Does this mean IndieAuth is more similar to Implicit than Auth Code but is more secure as the client id has to be redirect uri?
Regular OAuth 2.0 also supports the Authorization Code flow with no secret. In fact, many companies recommend Auth Code w/no secret instead of Implicit.
IndieAuth is like taking Auth Code w/no secret and adding back some layers of security because of the client ID being a URL. -
Khor
https://twitter.com/neth_6
•
Aug 8
Got a #IndieAuth question. Since there is no client pre-registration, there is no client secret. Thus during code/access token exchange no client secret is used. Less secure than Authorization Code and more like Implicit perhaps?
But, most importantly, the fact that IndieAuth uses a URL for the client ID means that you *do* authenticate the client in the initial Auth Code request, since the redirect URL has to match the domain or be registered. That's an improvement over OAuth with no secret.
-
Khor
https://twitter.com/neth_6
•
Aug 8
Got a #IndieAuth question. Since there is no client pre-registration, there is no client secret. Thus during code/access token exchange no client secret is used. Less secure than Authorization Code and more like Implicit perhaps?
Without the secret, there is no authentication of the client. PKCE solves this by using essentially an on-the-fly secret safe for use by mobile apps. IndieAuth *could* adopt the PKCE extension as well, tho afaik noone has done that yet.
-
Khor
https://twitter.com/neth_6
•
Aug 8
Got a #IndieAuth question. Since there is no client pre-registration, there is no client secret. Thus during code/access token exchange no client secret is used. Less secure than Authorization Code and more like Implicit perhaps?
Good question! The OAuth Authorization Code flow doesn't require a secret either. For example mobile apps can't use a secret, but still use the Auth Code flow. There are many benefits to the Auth Code flow over Implicit, I wrote some about that here https://developer.okta.com/blog/2018/05/24/what-is-the-oauth2-implicit-grant-type#when-to-use-the-implicit-grant-type
-
Portland, Oregon • Tue, August 7, 2018 1:03pm -
Typey type | Lessons (didoesdigital.com)
-
AsleepAwake7h 14mSlept20mAwake for
