On: Stop Using JWTs

[jongjong]

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.

[RagingCactus → jongjong]

> 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.

[robertlagrant → RagingCactus]

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.

[inigyou → robertlagrant]

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

[robertlagrant → inigyou]

But then "meant to" is doing the heavy lifting here. You could (and should) say that a JWT library is meant to default to secure.

[jongjong → RagingCactus]

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