-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 286
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
feat: Add insecure_decode_without_signature_validation #418
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: Add insecure_decode_without_signature_validation #418
Conversation
/// ``` | ||
pub fn insecure_decode_without_signature_validation<T: DeserializeOwned>( | ||
token: &str, | ||
validation: &Validation, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm missing something here. Please ignore if I'm wrong.
The function says it does not do validation and the algorithm can be arbitrary chose, yet, there is a validation param and the validation step. So it's kind of partial validation.
I find it confusing and is not what #401 calls for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah i was not completely sure that was the case as the creator of the issue wanted essentially this API:
``rs
let mut validation = jsonwebtoken::Validation::insecure_without_signature_validation();
let payload = jsonwebtoken::insecure_decode_without_signature_validation::(token, &validation).unwrap();
And IMO then a Validation::insecure_none or similar should exist to make this function more general.
Nonetheless the Doc comment is wrong so thanks for pointing that out!
let (claims, _) = expect_two!(rest.rsplitn(2, '.')); | ||
let decoded_claims = DecodedJwtPartClaims::from_jwt_part_claims(claims)?; | ||
let claims = decoded_claims.deserialize()?; | ||
validate(decoded_claims.deserialize()?, validation)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The function description says "the claims are not validated", but they are.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it a good idea to add tests?
- valid signature
- invalid signature
- invalid token
I'm not a maintainer, so feel free to ignore.
token: &str, | ||
validation: &Validation, | ||
) -> Result<T> { | ||
let (_, rest) = expect_two!(token.rsplitn(2, '.')); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
JWT has 3 parts: Header, Payload, Signature.
The existing code refers to them by those names:
let (signature, message) = expect_two!(token.rsplitn(2, '.'));
let (payload, header) = expect_two!(message.rsplitn(2, '.'));
It would be good to keep them consistent throughout the file.
84d5492
to
a083324
Compare
As discussed here adds support for insecure_decode_without_serialization as well as a doc test for it. I also fixed some doc warnings while at it.