4 ms·
Wasn't there an issue with JWT that was summarized as this: "This is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem: attackers control the choice of
by rjzzleep 9y ago
Wasn't there an issue with JWT that was summarized as this:
"This is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem: attackers control the choice of algorithm" ?
Here's another quote from the Wireguard paper[1]:
"Finally, WireGuard is cryptographically opinionated. It intentionally lacks cipher and protocol agility. If holes are found in the underlying primitives, all endpoints will be required to update"
[1]: https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf
- benjaminjackman 9y agoSorry I wasn’t suggesting allowing any algorithm to be used just whichever one was chosen next it be encoded in a way that if it needs to be replaced again it could, and also if possible that numeric id for that algorithm be standardized beyond just git. https://github.com/multiformats/multihash/blob/master/README.md#table-for-multihash-v100-rc-semver https://github.com/multiformats/multihash/blob/master/README...
- abritinthebay 9y agoThat’s only true of JWT if you allow your server to accept all algorithms. You don’t actually have to.
- rblatz 9y agoCorrect, your token authority should specify which algorithms are valid, and your clients should self configure via a secure back channel to only accept the algorithms your token authority issues.
- abritinthebay 9y agoExactly! JWT is a much misunderstood system it seems. Though it doesn’t exactly help itself by being quite complex