-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow at+jwt, according to RFC-9068 #13186
Conversation
@ymajoros Please sign the Contributor License Agreement! Click here to manually synchronize the status of this Pull Request. See the FAQ for frequently asked questions. |
@ymajoros Thank you for signing the Contributor License Agreement! |
@ymajoros, thank you very much for the PR. I don't think that it should be in |
@ymajoros, I don't think we should add this feature without also introducing validation. Allow me to elaborate on what I meant here. I think it would be valuable for The builders could change like so: NimbusJwtDecoder.withIssuerLocation(issuer)
.useNimbusTypeVerifier(false).build(); Then, we can change NimbusJwtDecoder decoder = NimbusJwtDecoder.withIssuerLocation(issuer)
.useNimbusTypeVerifier(false).build();
decoder.setJwtValidator(JwtValidators.createDefaultWithIssuer(issuer)); to remain an otherwise passive change. Then, this PR would also introduce a new validator for JwtValidators.createDefaultForAtJwt(issuer); So then to turn on NimbusJwtDecoder decoder = NimbusJwtDecoder.withIssuerLocation(issuer)
.useNimbusTypeVerifier(false).build();
decoder.setJwtValidator(JwtValidators.createDefaultForAtJwt(issuer)); Is this something you'd still be interested in putting together? If not, I can mark this as |
Hello, thanks for the analysis. TBH, I created this years ago because a colleague from security asked for it, but I don't even work there anymore and I won't follow this in any case. I just think being able to follow standards is always a good option, but I have no sponsor or personal interest in this anymore. Thanks for your feedback, anyway. |
No problem at all @ymajoros -- I like making sure before making a change like that to a PR, so thank you for responding as quickly as you did. I've moved this to |
I've been talking with the team about this, and since it likely has a flag that will require migration between 6.5 and 7, I'll take this up myself instead. |
Closes 13185