News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:JSON Web Tokens vs. Sessions by wtbob on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:31PM (#11931572)
Ummm, every browser for decades has supported URL parameters. I can't believe that IE breaks with them.

Yes, large URLs are an issue, but not with search engines & access tokens, since search engines shouldn't ever see access tokens. A JWT should be lightweight — if it's big, then it's wrong.

Re:JSON Web Tokens vs. Sessions by mschuster91 on Sunday June 19, 2016 @05:08AM (#11932337)
> but not with search engines & access tokens, since search engines shouldn't ever see access tokens

It's like with the PHPSESSID URL parameter before cookie support was widespread. You can very well attach a session to a search-engine bot, and there are explicit hints for appdevs to do so.

You have to pass the tokens somehow, and search engines usually don't run JS.

> A JWT should be lightweight — if it's big, then it's wrong.

A JWT should replace sessions, and I have seen megabyte-sized sesion files on servers. People put an awful lot of stuff into sessions. Especially if application state is contained in the session. Oh, and if your application e.g. stores paths to files in the session and you switch 1:1 to JWT, you will leak server information to the client, which is a security hole.

Re:JSON Web Tokens vs. Sessions by yxhuvud on Sunday June 19, 2016 @03:01AM (#11932095)
There are length restrictions for get parameters in older browsers.
Re:JSON Web Tokens vs. Sessions by erpellan on Sunday June 19, 2016 @04:53AM (#11932309)
Up to 2000 characters is generally considered fine.