github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 15:42:09 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

Apikey without user #1988

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-13 09:19:09 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 4 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:19:09 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @benjaminpreiss on GitHub (Sep 21, 2025).

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

When developing a betterAuth plugin, I came across the need to interact with the api.
Currently, this requires one to create a user with the admin role, which requires passing an email.

For server-to-server interactions or for a plugin, this doesn't make a lot of sense, I feel? I would have to make up an email address for that user, which doesnt feel clean. Wouldn't it make more sense to not tie API keys to users?

Also, as I mentioned in another issue, the plugins currently don't have an onInit method available, which would allow to use the auth instance to do some "provisioning", e.g. to set up an api key.

Describe the solution you'd like

Make API keys independent of users.
Add an onInit method to the plugin interface.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Using the anonymous plugin, setting up a user and then creating an API key.

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @benjaminpreiss on GitHub (Sep 21, 2025). ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. When developing a betterAuth plugin, I came across the need to interact with the api. Currently, this requires one to create a user with the admin role, which requires passing an email. For server-to-server interactions or for a plugin, this doesn't make a lot of sense, I feel? I would have to make up an email address for that user, which doesnt feel clean. Wouldn't it make more sense to not tie API keys to users? Also, as I mentioned in another issue, the plugins currently don't have an `onInit` method available, which would allow to use the auth instance to do some "provisioning", e.g. to set up an api key. ### Describe the solution you'd like Make API keys independent of users. Add an `onInit` method to the plugin interface. ### Describe alternatives you've considered Using the `anonymous` plugin, setting up a user and then creating an API key. ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the staleenhancementplugin labels 2026-03-13 09:19:09 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:19:11 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025):

I feel like this is more of an m2m authorization issue, our api-key plugins at minimum needs an entity.

I do believe there is an issue already open asking for m2m support.

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025): I feel like this is more of an m2m authorization issue, our api-key plugins at minimum needs __*an*__ entity. I do believe there is an issue already open asking for m2m support.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:19:12 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025):

(tag @better-auth-agent) Could you please clarify if you're looking for guidance on how to approach handling this m2m authorization scenario where the API key must be associated with an entity? For instance, one next step could be exploring whether creating a dedicated system entity (separate from the typical user model) for machine-to-machine interactions might resolve your issue. This would let you provision API keys without tying them to a standard user, aligning with your requirement for cleaner server-to-server integrations [1]. Have you already considered a design pattern similar to service accounts, or would you need more details on that approach?

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025): (tag @better-auth-agent) Could you please clarify if you're looking for guidance on how to approach handling this m2m authorization scenario where the API key must be associated with an entity? For instance, one next step could be exploring whether creating a dedicated system entity (separate from the typical user model) for machine-to-machine interactions might resolve your issue. This would let you provision API keys without tying them to a standard user, aligning with your requirement for cleaner server-to-server integrations [[1]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4797). Have you already considered a design pattern similar to service accounts, or would you need more details on that approach? <!-- bot:webhook reply v1 --> [Diagram](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) • [Discord](https://discord.gg/better-auth) • [GitHub](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth) [![Diagram](https://img.shields.io/badge/Diagram-2b3137?style=flat-square)](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) [![Join](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://discord.gg/better-auth) [![Star](https://img.shields.io/badge/star-181717?logo=github&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:19:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025):

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You're absolutely right that our current API-key design requires an associated entity, which creates challenges for pure machine-to-machine use cases. There's an open discussion about enhancing M2M support so that API keys could be independent of users and allow for plugin provisioning via an onInit method [1]. Until we implement those changes, a common workaround is to use the anonymous plugin or set up a dedicated service account to act as the required entity.

Does that help address your needs, or would you like to explore any alternative approaches in the meantime?
tag @better-auth-agent

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025): Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You're absolutely right that our current API-key design requires an associated entity, which creates challenges for pure machine-to-machine use cases. There's an open discussion about enhancing M2M support so that API keys could be independent of users and allow for plugin provisioning via an onInit method [[1]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4797). Until we implement those changes, a common workaround is to use the anonymous plugin or set up a dedicated service account to act as the required entity. Does that help address your needs, or would you like to explore any alternative approaches in the meantime? tag @better-auth-agent <!-- bot:webhook reply v1 --> [Diagram](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) • [Discord](https://discord.gg/better-auth) • [GitHub](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth) [![Diagram](https://img.shields.io/badge/Diagram-2b3137?style=flat-square)](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) [![Join](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://discord.gg/better-auth) [![Star](https://img.shields.io/badge/star-181717?logo=github&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:19:16 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026):

Hi, @benjaminpreiss. I'm Dosu, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested making API keys independent of users to better support server-to-server (machine-to-machine) interactions and plugin initialization via an onInit method.
  • Maintainers acknowledged this as a machine-to-machine authorization issue and referenced an ongoing discussion about enhancing m2m support.
  • Currently, API keys must be tied to an entity, with common workarounds including anonymous plugins or dedicated service accounts.
  • The team is open to exploring alternative approaches but has not yet resolved this request.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here to keep the discussion open.
  • If I do not hear back within 7 days, I will automatically close this issue.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026): Hi, @benjaminpreiss. I'm [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale. **Issue Summary:** - You requested making API keys independent of users to better support server-to-server (machine-to-machine) interactions and plugin initialization via an onInit method. - Maintainers acknowledged this as a machine-to-machine authorization issue and referenced an ongoing discussion about enhancing m2m support. - Currently, API keys must be tied to an entity, with common workarounds including anonymous plugins or dedicated service accounts. - The team is open to exploring alternative approaches but has not yet resolved this request. **Next Steps:** - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here to keep the discussion open. - If I do not hear back within 7 days, I will automatically close this issue. Thank you for your understanding and contribution!
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label enhancement plugin stale
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#1988
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?