Skip to content
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

Implement config variable to allow iat to remain unchanged claim when refreshing a token #269

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

robinnydahl
Copy link

Description

Please see my issue #268. Implement possibility to keep iat unchanged during token refresh.

Checklist:

  • I've added tests for my changes or tests are not applicable
  • I've changed documentations or changes are not required
  • I've added my changes to CHANGELOG.md

@Messhias
Copy link
Collaborator

Messhias commented Nov 7, 2024

@mfn or @eschricker can you review it?

@mfn
Copy link
Contributor

mfn commented Nov 7, 2024

Please allow me to find time, getting back ASAP

@mfn
Copy link
Contributor

mfn commented Nov 12, 2024

I replied over at #268 (comment)

@robinnydahl
Copy link
Author

I replied in #268 as well :)

@specialtactics
Copy link
Member

I am actually keen to set this to false by default in the interests of security, if the other maintainers are game.

Copy link
Contributor

@mfn mfn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am actually keen to set this to false by default in the interests of security, if the other maintainers are game.

I can, together with the context of #268 (comment) , agree to this.

I acknowledge:

  • the sudden change in behaviour which next to no proper warning is very unfortunate
  • in the interest of secure-by-default, the default should be false and match the current behaviour
  • the config comment, which likely will serve as the primordial documentation on this for the future, should be more clear about the security implications, more or less the scenario in the comment from @specialtactics I linked to

What do y'all think?

@specialtactics
Copy link
Member

I agree with your thoughts there @mfn, and I guess to your point, we need to work on having some documentation there on that, since we are adding more functionality to this package, and I don't think we control the original docs?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants