I’m trying to understand how resource ownership works in OAuth2, especially for non-individual entities. The spec defines a Resource Owner as an entity that can grant access to protected resources. But what happens when the owner is a group or organization?
Here’s my dilemma:
Imagine a bookstore chain with locations in different cities. Each store can update its book inventory through a REST API. The resource path looks like this:
/bookstore/locations/{city}/{isbn}
Now, a new service called BookStock wants access to update inventory. Should the authorization for this resource be:
Tied to a single account representing the store location?
Shared among all employees of that store?
I’m not asking if it’s technically possible, but rather if the second option goes against OAuth2 principles. Is it okay to have multiple Resource Owners for one resource?
I’ve checked the RFC and some books, but I’m still unsure about this specific scenario. Any insights?
I’ve dealt with similar scenarios in my work with distributed systems. While OAuth2 doesn’t explicitly address shared ownership, it’s quite common in practice. The key is to think of the ‘Resource Owner’ as an abstract entity representing the organization.
For your bookstore case, I’d recommend a hybrid approach. Create a single account for each store location, but use fine-grained permissions to allow multiple employees to act on behalf of that account. This maintains the spirit of OAuth2 while providing the flexibility you need.
In our company, we implemented this by associating each OAuth2 token with both a user and a ‘context’ (in your case, the store location). The authorization server then checks both the user’s permissions and the context when granting access.
This approach has worked well for us, allowing for shared resource management without compromising security or auditability. It’s a pragmatic solution that aligns with real-world business needs while still adhering to OAuth2 principles.
As someone who’s implemented OAuth2 for enterprise systems, I can share some insights on this. In practice, the concept of resource ownership can be more flexible than a strict one-to-one mapping.
For your bookstore scenario, I’d argue that option 2 - shared ownership among store employees - is perfectly valid and often more practical. Here’s why:
In real-world business contexts, resources are frequently owned by organizations rather than individuals. The ‘Resource Owner’ in OAuth2 can be interpreted as the entity with the authority to grant access, which in this case would be the bookstore itself.
We implemented a similar system for a retail chain where store managers and certain employees had shared access to inventory management. We used role-based access control (RBAC) in conjunction with OAuth2 to manage permissions.
The key is to design your authorization server to handle group-based permissions. This way, you can grant access to the BookStock service based on roles within the organization rather than tying it to individual accounts.
Remember, OAuth2 is a framework, and it’s meant to be adaptable to various business needs. As long as you’re maintaining the core principles of secure delegation of access, you’re on the right track.
oauth2 can definitely handle shared ownership. in our company, we use a group-based approach for scenarios like yours. each store location could have a group, and employees are added to it. the oauth server then checks group membership when authorizing access.
this way, you maintain the spirit of oauth2 while allowing flexible, shared resource management. it’s worked great for us in similar setups.