3 ms·

> you probably still just want a random key in a database. In general, I think that this is the wrong approach, because that means adding a database round-trip

by zeveb 9y ago

> you probably still just want a random key in a database. In general, I think that this is the wrong approach, because that means adding a database round-trip (which in a large system is almost certainly a network round-trip) for each and every API call. Notably, if the entire system is secured in depth (which large systems should be), it means adding a network round-trip for every layer of the API (e.g. one for the frontend server to validate the user, then another for a backend server to validate the frontend server). Using a stateful token[0] replaces that network round trip with a public-key or hash verification, which is much faster. > revocation is still an issue I think that generally revocation concerns are a bit overblown. Even with a database lookup on every request, there is a (small) amount of time that one is willing to act on out-of-date information (after all, the user's access could be disabled immediately after the lookup, before the action is performed). Almost every business has some window in which it is willing to act on old information: better to make it explicit than to leave it implicit. I really like the long-lived stateless token-refresh token[1] and relatively short-lived stateful access token approach often seen in OAuth2 setups. E.g. an email provider might only bother refreshing a read-email access token every five minutes or so, but might wish to refresh a delete-email or send-email token more frequently (or require a database lookup each time). [0] When I write 'stateful token,' I mean a token which is full of state; confusingly, some folks calls this a 'stateless token,' because the relying systems do not need to store or consult state. [1] When I write 'stateless token,' I mean a token which carries no state and thus must be looked up in some form of database — a random key in a database would suffice.

lvh 9y ago
> In general, I think that this is the wrong approach, because that means adding a database round-trip (which in a large system is almost certainly a network round-trip) for each and every API call. In general, asking a database for set membership is not close to the slowest thing applications do. > Notably, if the entire system is secured in depth (which large systems should be), it means adding a network round-trip for every layer of the API (e.g. one for the frontend server to validate the user, then another for a backend server to validate the frontend server). Using a stateful token[0] replaces that network round trip with a public-key or hash verification, which is much faster. A handful of those set membership checks: still not the slowest thing applications do. (Also, I don't think it's a given that internal auth has to work the same way external auth does, for a bunch of reasons.) > I think that generally revocation concerns are a bit overblown. Without revocation, you can't log out of things, and you can't invalidate sessions after credential rotation. So unless you're saying tokens should be valid for some tiny number of seconds... in which case, it's questionable that you're buying a lot of performance for your drastically more complicated token scheme. > Even with a database lookup on every request, there is a (small) amount of time that one is willing to act on out-of-date information (after all, the user's access could be disabled immediately after the lookup, before the action is performed). Almost every business has some window in which it is willing to act on old information: better to make it explicit than to leave it implicit. Median response time is not comparable to usual token expiry times. If you do make them comparable, then you're making that DB check every time anyway. The entire point of the token is to do that less. You're right that it's implicit, but it's also "the fastest that it possibly ever could be", so that's not a bad kind of implicit. If you really desperately want to make the check faster, why is JWT better than a local token cache?
- zeveb 9y ago
  > In general, asking a database for set membership is not close to the slowest thing applications do. From Jeff Dean's list of numbers every programmer should know[0], a round trip within the same datacenter takes on the order of 500,000 ns; a main memory reference is on the order of 100 ns. How often will an application be making an order of magnitude more than 5,000 main memory references to service a request? Sometimes, sure. In our experience online validation completely dominates our workloads. > I don't think it's a given that internal auth has to work the same way external auth does, for a bunch of reasons. Oh, you're completely correct. It has upsides & downsides. > Without revocation, you can't log out of things, and you can't invalidate sessions after credential rotation. I pointed out that I like the use of stateless tokens, which can be revoked. In many cases 'log out' can just be destruction of the token. And in many cases it doesn't make sense to invalidate access just because credentials have rotated (in many more cases it does, which of course is perfectly supportable with stateless tokens). > So unless you're saying tokens should be valid for some tiny number of seconds. I'm not: I'm saying that in many cases there's no business need to assure revocation within $SMALLNUM seconds, and that the business costs of online validation utterly dominate the costs of running a service. > If you really desperately want to make the check faster, why is JWT better than a local token cache? There are only two hard things in computer science … cache invalidation is one of them. [1] https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832 https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832
  - lvh 9y ago
    > There are only two hard things in computer science … cache invalidation is one of them. I mean, it's a pithy saying, but TTL invalidation is a problem you have to solve with JWT too. Caching tokens is the easiest possible cache invalidation problem: definitionally, you know a priori exactly when the token is invalid.
  - lvh 9y ago
    > From Jeff Dean's list of numbers every programmer should know[0], a round trip within the same datacenter takes on the order of 500,000 ns; a main memory reference is on the order of 100 ns. How often will an application be making an order of magnitude more than 5,000 main memory references to service a request? Sometimes, sure. That argument is only valid if your application doesn't touch disk and doesn't touch the network to go talk to some other service anyway. Do you have a concrete description of what "online validation" specifically means for you, and how long it takes? How long does validating the token take instead?

by zeveb 9y ago

lvh 9y ago

> In general, I think that this is the wrong approach, because that means adding a database round-trip (which in a large system is almost certainly a network round-trip) for each and every API call. In general, asking a database for set membership is not close to the slowest thing applications do. > Notably, if the entire system is secured in depth (which large systems should be), it means adding a network round-trip for every layer of the API (e.g. one for the frontend server to validate the user, then another for a backend server to validate the frontend server). Using a stateful token[0] replaces that network round trip with a public-key or hash verification, which is much faster. A handful of those set membership checks: still not the slowest thing applications do. (Also, I don't think it's a given that internal auth has to work the same way external auth does, for a bunch of reasons.) > I think that generally revocation concerns are a bit overblown. Without revocation, you can't log out of things, and you can't invalidate sessions after credential rotation. So unless you're saying tokens should be valid for some tiny number of seconds... in which case, it's questionable that you're buying a lot of performance for your drastically more complicated token scheme. > Even with a database lookup on every request, there is a (small) amount of time that one is willing to act on out-of-date information (after all, the user's access could be disabled immediately after the lookup, before the action is performed). Almost every business has some window in which it is willing to act on old information: better to make it explicit than to leave it implicit. Median response time is not comparable to usual token expiry times. If you do make them comparable, then you're making that DB check every time anyway. The entire point of the token is to do that less. You're right that it's implicit, but it's also "the fastest that it possibly ever could be", so that's not a bad kind of implicit. If you really desperately want to make the check faster, why is JWT better than a local token cache?

zeveb 9y ago
> In general, asking a database for set membership is not close to the slowest thing applications do. From Jeff Dean's list of numbers every programmer should know[0], a round trip within the same datacenter takes on the order of 500,000 ns; a main memory reference is on the order of 100 ns. How often will an application be making an order of magnitude more than 5,000 main memory references to service a request? Sometimes, sure. In our experience online validation completely dominates our workloads. > I don't think it's a given that internal auth has to work the same way external auth does, for a bunch of reasons. Oh, you're completely correct. It has upsides & downsides. > Without revocation, you can't log out of things, and you can't invalidate sessions after credential rotation. I pointed out that I like the use of stateless tokens, which can be revoked. In many cases 'log out' can just be destruction of the token. And in many cases it doesn't make sense to invalidate access just because credentials have rotated (in many more cases it does, which of course is perfectly supportable with stateless tokens). > So unless you're saying tokens should be valid for some tiny number of seconds. I'm not: I'm saying that in many cases there's no business need to assure revocation within $SMALLNUM seconds, and that the business costs of online validation utterly dominate the costs of running a service. > If you really desperately want to make the check faster, why is JWT better than a local token cache? There are only two hard things in computer science … cache invalidation is one of them. [1] https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832 https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832
- lvh 9y ago
  > There are only two hard things in computer science … cache invalidation is one of them. I mean, it's a pithy saying, but TTL invalidation is a problem you have to solve with JWT too. Caching tokens is the easiest possible cache invalidation problem: definitionally, you know a priori exactly when the token is invalid.
- lvh 9y ago
  > From Jeff Dean's list of numbers every programmer should know[0], a round trip within the same datacenter takes on the order of 500,000 ns; a main memory reference is on the order of 100 ns. How often will an application be making an order of magnitude more than 5,000 main memory references to service a request? Sometimes, sure. That argument is only valid if your application doesn't touch disk and doesn't touch the network to go talk to some other service anyway. Do you have a concrete description of what "online validation" specifically means for you, and how long it takes? How long does validating the token take instead?