Talk:OpenID

message: This is totally missing, there's a total lack of overview of OpenID releases. This is particularly important as they moved to a non-numerical versioning scheme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.162.39 (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of OpenID releases 

message: Article is incorrect as it lists Facebook as OpenID provider. Facebook is OpenID relaying party but not provider. Source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1827997/is-facebook-an-openid-provider. I can confirm this, tried to use my facebook page facebook.com/myusername as an OpenID URL. It didn't work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkao (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook as OpenID provider 

message: I think a such comparison would be interesting. A possibile source to summarize: this white paper (151.97.56.8 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenID vs SAML 

message: There is no discussion in this article about the serious security issues that arise with having a single username/password combo that can log into every site on the planet.  Crack my myspace account, and you can then precede to clean-out all my bank accounts.  Really. Bad. Idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.108.198 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. For someone interested in the subject, a bare introduction into information security models will be enough to understand that OpenID is, well, a bubble. For those trying to find a quick but more or less weighted opinion, the article says it all: all major corps (except Facebook as of Jul 09), are happy to be OpenID providers, but never consumers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.70.15 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Forgot to add. As I was writing the previous comment, I decided to sign up for an account. Guess what? Wikipedia, too, does not accept OpenID accounts.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.70.15 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Why for God's sake would you use myspace as a OpenID provider for your bank? And also which bank would allow itself to "outsource" authentication by being OpenID consumer? I haven't heard about such a bank.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.239.167.80 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

text: No worse than the existing system by which if someone cracks your e-mail account, they can reset all your passwords. 205.155.154.3 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it's worse.  In your example there is only one point of entry. 63.112.58.114 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: All the security issues above really exist. The problem is the potentially malicious relying party. No need to crack any SSL, because it _IS_ "in the middle" already. No extra "man-in-the-middle" efforts needed. You talk with _this_ malicious relying party via SSL (or https, anyway) already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.52.26 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  security issues 

message: I've just removed this from the "2009" subsection
"In May Facebook launched their relying party functionality, letting users use a Google, Yahoo or OpenID to log into their Facebook account."
It has no source, I've found no source for it, and www.facebook.com shows no sign of this, so until someone proves contrary, I'm considering untrue (remember source should ALWAYS be posted). HuGo_87 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this will help? http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&story=246 ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I could find no information on the subject, so I though it might be untrue. I've still to find WHERE you login using your OpenID, since all I can find, is the same old registration form. HuGo_87 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While this probably falls into the realm of WP:NOT#FORUM, you need to add an OpenID account to your "Account settings" page. Then, when you log out, it will automatically log you in (if you're OpenID account supports auto-login). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2009 unsourced and aparently fake information 

message: I have been reading up on openID for around an hour, and still haven't any real idea what it is. I presume there are three situations:
user, Website using openID to log in, website acting as openID provider .... but there might be some kind of indirect openid.
By far the worst article is the wikipedia one, which basically is a bit like reading an account of Christianity which fails to mention someone called jesus, because it is basically written by and for a bunch of Roman Catholic theologians and not for someone who hasn't the faintest clue what Christianity is.
What is openID? I think it is a way to be able to sign on to many websites using one single ID ... or perhaps not ... perhaps it is a way to autheniticate a website as being authentic, so I know a site with "OPENID" has signed up for an openID?
... and then can/would I want to, integrate this with my own PHP driven password authentication on my own websites.
79.79.255.151 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  As clear as mud 

message: I was heavily misled by the original intro, in that it seemed to imply that OpenID provided a means for universal login to any site. After spending quite a bit of time investigating, I have realised that openID simply provides a common standard for a website to vouch for a user. This does not remove the question of "can I trust this person", but instead replaces it with "Can I trust the website that says they trust this person" .... and remember any person can create a website vouching for users like spam597.spambotsRus.com 
So, I have changed the intro to remove the suggestion of universality of login in, and to emphasise that some openIDs will be more open than others Bugsy (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenID does not allow open login as suggested in intro 

message: I don't know if anyone else is willing to work on it, but the latter half of the History section focuses a little too much on companies and adoption (while still overlooking :mixi, which is huge in Japan) when there are quite a few other important aspects to cover: the Provider Authentication Policy Extension (PAPE), the Contract Exchange (TX) extension, the rise of :Facebook Connect, OpenID+:OAuth, initiatives such as advisory committees for the retail and content provider sectors, government adoption, etc. Dancter (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OpenID Connect is a significant development which should be mentioned. Covering OpenID implementation and adoption challenges over the years under OpenID 2.0, especially in comparison to the now-dominant Facebook Connect, would provide some nice contexxt. Dancter (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: This article has some rather glowing ad-like prose, how-to examples, and talk page editorializing... what it really needs is more description of the facts, like what information the OpenID provider communicates to the site the user wishes to use and vice versa. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 Needs clean up. --Sakimura (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remember this is an encyclopedia... 

message: I'm a software engineer with over 20 years experience and am annoyed that I can't make heads nor tails of this.  This set of explanations just does not pin down what is what.
I was ALSO going to rail on about how this explanation was written entirely for someone who already understood the subject, but the person who started the discussion section:"Clear as Mud" said precisely that.  Yes, whomever you are at 79.79.255.151, you nailed it.
It immediately brings to mind two things in my past.  The Java security framework documenation.  And the FAA certification requirements specs.
Tgm1024 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed to Tgm1024. This is an extremely badly written article. Needs a good amount of rewriting.--Sakimura (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I STILL don't understand what the heck this is. 

message: Hit the page searching for manymoon, and landed here. Quipped text included 'vulnerable', so searched on that within the page.
"In March, 2012, a research paper [22] reported two generic security issues in OpenID. Both issues allow malicious to sign into victim's relying party accounts"
- malicious what?
- relying?
Bs27975 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? (Authentication Bugs) 

message: Despite the differences from OpenID 2.0, OpenID Connect is still OpenID, and is in fact the successor to OpenID 2.0. While I don't oppose sub-articles for individual versions if necessary, I think OpenID Connect coverage should be integrated into this article. Dancter (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: +1. In fact, "OpenID" is an umbrella name for multiple specifications. It is somewhat similar to "ISO" or "ITU-T". It is a registered trademark in many countries. The article should start by explaining about it, then introduce many subcomponents rather than explaining "OpenID" equals "OpenID Authentication 2.0". --Sakimura (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: OpenID Connect

message: To simplify the first paragraph, all of the text from "Several large organizations either issue or accept OpenIDs ..." to the end should be moved to the Adoption section.
In the Adoption section, it would be helpful if there were separate lists for those who issue (ie provide) and those who accept, and also if there was some indication of the number of providers (rather than just of account holders and accepting sites).
203.129.56.132 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 for removing them from intro. --Sakimura (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate adoption details from the introduction 

message: The information in this article needs to be summarized in the form of an infobox. I cannot format a basic infobox without it getting removed by a user or starting an edit war, so I request that an infobox be added to the article, summarizing the key points.
TheFallenOneGOTH (Talk) 22:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on OpenID. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504054201/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/683939.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/683939.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://reddevnews.com/news/devnews/article.aspx?editorialsid=913
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425033329/http://brad.livejournal.com/2226738.html to http://brad.livejournal.com/2226738.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020010916/http://daveman692.livejournal.com/251286.html to http://daveman692.livejournal.com/251286.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080117/20080117005332.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There used to be a , but it was replaced by a redirect here. From the , however, I found several providers that do NOT require you to give up a cell phone number (or similar) to gain an openid account.
*  – OpenID provider with multiple identities, multiple persons, only SSL secured connections and anti phishing support (in German)
After several attempts, I found one that is still working. This one I just used myself successfully, and I've verified that I can now post blog comments using it. It has English instructions. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting an openid without giving personal details 

message: This entry is a mess, contains a lot of untrue or irrelevant information. 
Also, it probably is violating the Wikipedia principle of an article being not a textbook entry. 
It should be cleaned up. 
OpenID is not Authentication to start with. So, the first line saying "OpenID is an open standard and decentralized authentication protocol" is actually not true. 
I have started fixing it but was reverted by User:Bbb23. Need to discuss.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakimura (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up the page, please! 

message: OpenID != OpenID Authentication 2.0. 
Create the section and collect all that are OpenID Authentication 2.0 there. 
By doing so, it would be much easier to introduce various other "OpenID" specifications.--Sakimura (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create a new section "OpenID Authentication 2.0" and collect all that belongs there