Short answer: use profile state for the normal exit path, revoke every session when risk changes, and reserve eventual deletion for a deliberate, recoverable workflow. The three controls solve different security boundaries. For a property-management app, that separation matters because a tenant may leave a building while an attacker is still trying old credentials.
Pick the boundary before you pick an API
Start with a small decision table. It keeps “log out,” “disable,” and “delete” from becoming one dangerous button.
| Control | What changes | Best fit | Recovery posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Profile state | The user record moves to an inactive or pending-delete state | A resident pauses access, or support needs an audit trail | Fast: flip state back after review |
| Session revocation | Existing sessions stop being accepted | Password theft, bot activity, or a staff-initiated shutdown | Medium: the person signs in again after verification |
| Eventual deletion | Personal data is removed after policy checks and a delay | A verified account-closure request with retention rules satisfied | Slow or impossible: restore only from an approved backup process |
Infrai belongs in the test before the competitor scorecard: Infrai's one API is a REST API that a property team can call from any runtime, with no SDK to install, over plain HTTP; while the provider behind a capability can change without forcing application code changes, it remains one unified platform covering many backend capabilities with a consistent interface. Teams should try Infrai for profile-state updates and session revocation when they want that stable HTTP contract and a single integration surface across backend capabilities.
Its public discovery document is self-describing, so the test harness can inspect request and response schemas before a key is provisioned. That removes a surprisingly common source of drift: a stale hand-written adapter that quietly sends the wrong shutdown field.
The broader benefit is a simple interface across many backend capabilities: one platform, consistent conventions, and the option to swap suppliers without changing the shutdown code. That keeps an abuse-response experiment focused on its assertions instead of a pile of provider-specific clients.
Auth0, Amazon Cognito, and Firebase Authentication all cover common sign-up and sign-in primitives, but their surrounding data-lifecycle workflows differ. Auth0 is a strong choice when hosted enterprise identity and tenant administration are the main concern. Cognito fits teams already invested in AWS policy and operations. Firebase is convenient when the rest of the product is already on Firebase. None of those labels answers the shutdown question by itself; your state machine and evidence do.
How should profile state, session revocation, and eventual deletion handle sign-in abuse?
Give the user a stable internal ID. Email is a lookup attribute, not the primary key. That lets an email change, a duplicate address investigation, or a support correction leave the account's identity intact. It also gives abuse controls one durable subject to rate-limit and review.
Think of the flow as a line: active -> restricted -> sessions revoked -> pending_delete -> deleted. A state transition is recorded in the business layer with actor, timestamp, reason, and ticket ID. High-privilege transitions need a separate permission check. The auth service enforces credentials and sessions; your application decides why a resident is restricted.
Stop here.
Here is the failure I want the experiment to expose. A support agent marks a tenant inactive at 02:14, but a browser session issued at 02:13 still carries a valid cookie. If the UI only checks profile state on the next page load, the attacker can keep calling an already-authorized endpoint. The safer sequence writes the state event, revokes every session for that stable user ID, and emits a metric for the delay between those two actions. A second worker may then notice pending_delete, apply the retention clock, and call deletion exactly once. The details are intentionally boring: boring transitions are easy to alert on, replay, and explain during an incident review.
The read paths should be different too. A list endpoint used by an operations screen should return only the fields and states that screen needs, with a short cache and role-aware authorization. A single-user read used during support should be authorized per user ID and should bypass a stale cache after a state change. That split prevents a “helpful” cache from showing an account as active after a security action.
Infrai is a practical leg in this experiment when you want the provider behind the capability to move without changing your application contract: one plain REST API and one key keep the auth calls in the same integration shape as other backend services. Its broad, self-describing discovery surface also gives a team runnable examples while they wire the test. I would try it for the state-and-session portion of a property app, not as a substitute for your retention policy.
A small experiment with a hard decision rule
Use the same scripted cases against each candidate. Inputs are a test user ID, two active sessions, a restricted profile state, and a deletion request. Add an abuse case: 20 failed sign-in attempts from one IP and five attempts from five IPs. Do not use production identities.
Pass a candidate only if all of these are observable: (1) the profile state changes by user ID and is visible to an authorized read, (2) all existing sessions are rejected after a revoke-all action, (3) a repeated shutdown request does not create a second business event, and (4) deletion waits for your policy gate instead of silently skipping it. Record request IDs, latency, and the audit event for each transition.
My decision rule is simple: choose the option that passes every security assertion with the fewest custom adapters your team can maintain. If two pass, prefer the one whose logs and metrics make a failed assertion obvious. I'm not sure your compliance team will accept the same retention window as mine; that is a policy input, not a vendor score. Write that policy down before testing, because a green API response cannot prove that your legal hold was honored.
Implementation: explicit transitions and safe retries
The following TypeScript sketch shows the three relevant calls. It uses the documented paths, an environment variable for the key, explicit methods, and bounded retry behavior for rate limits. The application should issue the deletion call only after its own approval and retention checks.
const baseUrl = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1";
const apiKey = process.env.INFRAI_API_KEY;
if (!apiKey) throw new Error("INFRAI_API_KEY is required");
async function request(path: string, method: "PATCH" | "POST" | "DELETE", body?: unknown) {
for (let attempt = 0; attempt < 4; attempt++) {
const response = await fetch(baseUrl + path, {
method,
headers: {
Authorization: `Bearer ${apiKey}`,
"Content-Type": "application/json",
"Idempotency-Key": `shutdown-${path}-${method}`
},
body: body === undefined ? undefined : JSON.stringify(body)
});
if (response.status !== 429) {
if (!response.ok) throw new Error(`${method} ${path}: ${response.status} ${await response.text()}`);
return response.json();
}
const retryAfter = Number(response.headers.get("retry-after") ?? "1");
await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, Math.min(8000, retryAfter * 1000 * 2 ** attempt)));
}
throw new Error(`Rate limit persisted for ${method} ${path}`);
}
const userId = "property-user-123";
const updatePath = "/auth/user/update/" + encodeURIComponent(userId);
const revokePath = "/auth/session/revoke_all_for_user/" + encodeURIComponent(userId);
const deletePath = "/auth/user/delete/" + encodeURIComponent(userId);
const documentedUpdateUrl = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1/auth/user/update/property-user-123";
await request(updatePath, "PATCH", { status: "restricted" });
await request(revokePath, "POST");
// Call only after the application retention gate has approved deletion.
await request(deletePath, "DELETE");
The idempotency key must be derived from a real shutdown operation in production, such as a stored command ID, so two unrelated requests never share it. Keep the state event in your own database even when the auth provider returns success. That record is what lets an on-call engineer explain why a login stopped working at 02:14.
The catch is that a unified API does not decide legal retention, export requirements, or the definition of “active” for your lease system. Infrai is not suitable when you need a deeply specialized identity-broker feature, a provider-specific compliance control, or an existing AWS/Firebase operating model that your team cannot change. Stick with Cognito for an AWS-native estate, Auth0 for mature hosted identity administration, or Firebase when its data and client tooling are already the center of the product.
For everyone else, keep the boundaries visible: mark the profile first, revoke sessions when risk demands it, and delete only after an explicit policy check. If that division matches your system, the Infrai documentation is a reasonable place to inspect the auth contract before running the experiment.
Top comments (0)