[stephenr]

It's madness to me that people (not OP specifically) will simultaneously say "you have to outsource login to a third party, storing passwords safely is too hard" and... also this.

The answer to "what can I do" is "stop depending on a third party service that's critical for your business and essentially trivial to replace".

[xyst]

also as a consumer, don’t use big tech single sign on. If big tech 86s the account for whatever reason, then you lose access to the services you linked the account to.

[dewey]

Login is never "trival" to replace.

[stephenr]

If handling a user identifier and a hashed password securely, and providing a means to reset said password is more than "trivial" relative to the rest of a business application, the whole scenario is moot anyway because it's going to be shut down before anyone who might attack it is even aware it existed: there isn't really a profitable market for hello-world and "my first todo" apps.

[ndriscoll]

IIRC a basic oauth social login implementation is ~40 lines of code (assuming you already have things like json parsing). You need to understand what you're doing to make sure you do the necessary validation (e.g. including the nonce from OP), but the part auth0 is doing for you is pretty trivial.

[saurik]

I agree with you, but I think the comment is about replacing Google, not replacing Auth0.

[ndriscoll]

How so? Google is an IdP. It provides the user's identity. Auth0 is a middle layer that (in this case) transforms oauth responses into oauth responses.

The thing you'd replace Google with would be something like oauth client auto-registration so people can use their own oauth server on their domain.

Edit: Oh, I see what you/they mean. That's probably fair, but SSO is actually convenient for people, so it's fair to offer both oauth and user/password login. And dealing with SSO is probably easier than handling passwords, reset flows, etc. Passkeys would also work well here if they weren't so user-hostile.

[stephenr]

> dealing with SSO is probably easier than handling passwords, reset flows, etc.

It's really not that difficult. Yes you need to be aware of risks, and be more careful with the data. But it's not exactly rocket science, and you're never going to end up in a scenario where your users can't login because the login flow is out of your hands, as per the topic of this thread.

[dewey]

> you're never going to end up in a scenario where your users can't login because the login flow is out of your hands

It's more likely that the person re-implementing the SSO flow is making a mistake and the login behaviour is getting messed up than the default Google/Apple SSO implementation that's deployed to billions of users and business critical for many companies that use that kind of SSO internally too.

[uncletammy]

There are many reasons one might use a "login with X" flow that have nothing to do with storing passwords