In web development, choosing the right authentication strategy is a pivotal decision, especially for solo developers or small teams working with limited resources. After extensive research, I’ve adopted a hybrid approach that combines the security and ease of 3rd party services like Google and Microsoft with the control of an in-house solution.

This hybrid approach addresses my core concerns: cost, control, and user convenience while keeping the in-house method at the forefront. As we explore this topic, I’ll share the considerations and insights that shaped my strategy, aiming to guide you toward the authentication system that best fits your project’s unique demands.

Option 1: Exploring Paid Authentication Services

In web development, one of the pivotal decisions that solo developers and small teams face revolves around choosing the right authentication service. Among the variety of options available, services like Auth0, Firebase, and Magic Link often surface as popular paid service options. But are they the right fit for developers working with tight budgets? Let’s dive into this.

Auth0, Firebase, and Magic Link Overview

Auth0, Firebase Authentication, and Magic Link are known for offering secure authentication solutions. These platforms cater to a wide variety of authentication needs, providing features such as social logins, multi-factor authentication, and user management. Their appeal lies in the simplicity of integration and the promise of high-level security, which is crucial for protecting user data.

Cost Concerns

While these services seem like an all-in-one solution, their cost structures can be a deal-breaker for those of us on a smaller budget. Typically, these platforms follow a usage-based pricing model. This means every time a user signs up, logs in, or resets their password, it counts as a service call – and these add up.

For instance, a basic sign-up process involves several chargeable actions: the initial user registration, verification email sending, and the first login. As your user base grows, or if your application experiences heavy traffic, these seemingly minor costs can build up quickly. And unfortunately, you sometimes don’t notice it until you see the bill at the end of the month.

For instance, let’s take a closer look at Magic Link’s pricing structure. Imagine you’re starting with an expectation of about 1,000 monthly active users. In this scenario, Magic Link could be an excellent fit, offering an affordable and scalable solution for your early-stage application.

However, it’s natural to aspire to growth beyond your initial user base. As your user count climbs, surpassing the 1,000 mark, the reality of escalating costs sets in. This pivotal moment often forces developers to make a tough decision: either allocate funds to accommodate the rising expenses of a service like Magic Link or transition to a custom in-house solution that offers more control and potentially lower long-term costs. It’s a tough spot to be in when you’re managing your application’s growth and budget.

Pros and Cons

On the plus side, these paid services offload a significant burden of security and maintenance. These services are regularly updated to counter new security threats, ensuring that your user data remains safe. Their interfaces are generally user-friendly, and they offer a range of customizations to fit application needs.
However, the downside, apart from the cost, is the lack of complete control. You’re reliant on their systems for your application. Any downtime or changes in their service or pricing model would directly impact your application.

In conclusion, while Auth0, Firebase, and Magic Link offer powerful and secure authentication solutions, their payment plans may not be ideal for solo developers or small teams operating on a limited budget.

Option 2: Implementing 3rd Party Authentication

Having realized that paid authentication services might not be the best route for budget-conscious developer groups, I turned my attention to 3rd party authentication solutions, specifically using Passport.js for Google and Microsoft authentication in my Node.js Express application.

Integrating Passport.js for Streamlined Authentication

Passport.js stands out as a popular solution in the Node.js ecosystem, designed to simplify the authentication process. It’s particularly great at supporting a variety of strategies, including OAuth, which is compatible with platforms like Google and Microsoft, among others. My experience integrating Passport.js was surprisingly straightforward.

Setting the Foundation with Passport.js

The journey to integrate 3rd party authentication begins by incorporating the Passport.js dependency into your application. In my project, this meant updating the index.js file, the central hub of the Node.js application.

The image below demonstrates the critical additions made to this file. It includes the integration of Passport.js and the specific logic required for Microsoft authentication. This setup is pivotal for enabling user authentication through Microsoft accounts in our application.

Creating a Dedicated Authenticate.js File

The next step involved creating a new authenticate.js file, dedicated to managing the details of authentication logic. This file handles the complexities of the Microsoft authentication process, and that same process can be adapted for other 3rd party services as well.

By integrating this file into the index.js, we ensure an efficient authentication flow. The authenticate.js file includes specific configurations and procedures essential for each Passport strategy. This includes managing user data and callbacks for both successful and failed authentication attempts.

Challenges and Concerns

Although integrating Passport.js was less complicated than I initially feared, it wasn’t without its challenges and concerns. A significant issue was the dependency on 3rd party package updates. If, for example, Google or Microsoft changed their authentication API or if Passport.js updated their dependencies, it could break the authentication process in my application.

Also, setting up developer accounts for each 3rd party service (Google, Microsoft, etc.) and managing these for different environments (development, testing, production) added to the complexity. Each platform has its own set of guidelines and configurations, which means additional overhead in terms of setup and maintenance.

Uncertainty of Future Costs

Another concern is the uncertainty regarding the future costs of these 3rd party services. Presently, Google and Microsoft offer their authentication services for free. However, there’s always a possibility that they might start charging for these services in the future. If that happens, developers who have integrated these services into their applications will face a dilemma. Either bear the additional costs or migrate to an alternative solution like in-house user authentication.

This thought led me to explore creating my own in-house solution, which will be discussed in the next section. The idea was to find a balance between cost-effectiveness, control, and security, which is crucial for small-scale projects with limited resources.

Option 3: Building In-House User Authentication

After weighing the pros and cons of 3rd party authentication services, I ventured into the territory of creating an in-house user authentication system. This route promised more control and independence, but it came with its own set of challenges and responsibilities.

The Journey of Creating a New User Authentication System

Embarking on the task of building a complete user authentication system is intimidating, especially for a solo developer or a small team. It involves numerous components: implementing password hashing, creating pages for signup, login, password reset, and email confirmation, and designing the database structure for storing user data.

The most intimidating part for me was the concern that I might implement an authentication system that was either outdated or insecure. This fear loomed large, particularly during the database setup phase. In response to these concerns, I designed my database with a security-first approach, carefully organizing it to separate various elements such as reset tokens, email verification, and password recovery data into separate tables. This intentional structuring was important to ensure that each aspect of the system operated within its own secure and designated space.

Structuring the Database

Here’s a breakdown of how I structured my database with security top of mind.

user_account: This table housed the essential user information – user_id, email, password_hash, first_name, and last_name.

user_email_verification: Linked to the user_account table via user_id, it included fields like token, expires_at, created_at, and is_verified.

user_password_reset: Also referencing user_account with user_id, it contained reset_token, created_at, expires_at, and used.

refresh_token: This table connected to user_account via user_id and stored the JWT token, sha256_hash (necessary for Argon2 tokens due to their unique salt for each token), created_at, expires_at, and revoked.

Choosing the Right Hashing Algorithm

Another important part of setting up an in-house authentication system is selecting the appropriate hashing algorithm, not just for user passwords but also for other sensitive information like tokens. This decision is critical for ensuring the security and integrity of the data.

During my research, Argon2 emerged as the most suitable option, especially for password hashing. Argon2 has been recognized by the security community for its award-winning status. Argon2 was the winner of the Password Hashing Competition in 2015, which gives it credence for its effectiveness and security.

Conclusion

After a thorough investigation into the available user authentication strategies, I opted for a hybrid approach that combines an in-house system with the added option of 3rd party services such as Google and Microsoft. This strategy strikes a balance between maintaining control, ensuring security, and providing flexibility, all of which are in line with my present needs. The driving factors in my decision were cost-effectiveness, the degree of control over the system, and the convenience for end-users. While this blend addresses each of those concerns effectively, the in-house solution remains the cornerstone of my authentication framework.

By developing an in-house system, I gain complete control over user authentication, avoiding total reliance on external services. This control extends to critical aspects like database management, security protocols, and the user experience. Utilizing Argon2 for hashing ensures that the system is secure and resistant to modern attack strategies.

Integrating 3rd party authentication services, such as Google and Microsoft, provides users with familiar login options. However, having an in-house solution as the foundation of my authentication strategy is important. It serves as a reliable fallback in case there are changes in the pricing or policies of these 3rd party services. By offering multiple sign-up options, I cater to a broader user base while securing my application against potential future costs or limitations imposed by 3rd party services.

Final Thoughts

It’s important to remember that the choice between in-house, 3rd party, or a hybrid authentication system depends on individual circumstances and priorities. For solo developers or small teams, factors such as available resources, technical expertise, project scale, and budget constraints play a significant role in this decision.

If you have the resources and willingness to invest time in learning and implementation, an in-house solution offers unparalleled control and customization. However, if you’re looking for ease of implementation and immediate robust security, 3rd party services might be the way to go, at least as a starting point.