undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjongjong10d ago0 comments

The people who are upset about JWTs probably got burned by trying to use them in a weird way. Some people try to store sensitive data inside JWTs... WTF, the idea would never have entered my mind! Sensitive data should stay on your server. Encrypted or not! JWTs are supposed to be signed, not encrypted! You shouldn't even think to put sensitive info in there. Also, WTF is wrong with people who accepted algorithm "none." Most of these people who tried to tweak the defaults had no idea what they were doing in the first place.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

RagingCactus10d ago· 3 in thread

> Also, WTF is wrong with people who accepted algorithm "none."

They dared to use the default validation function of their JWT library. They did not choose to accept "none".

And the library authors implemented it because it's in the spec. It doesn't excuse that the default was to accept "none", but it is an explanation and in my opinion a valid critique of the standard.

robertlagrant10d ago

You could have a SQL library that defaults to inserting "OR 1=1" to every update query, which the SQL standard allows. I would blame the library.

inigyou10d ago

The SQL library is meant to run the query you give it.

jongjongOP10d ago

Yeah well it's definitely a footgun built into the spec but ultimately an library implementation mistake.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse