Re:Should I Use jwts For Authentication Tokens?
by EthanHeilman on Monday May 27, 2024 @01:09PM
(#40492645)
The first case sounds more like a case for OAuth which doesn't have to use JWTs or digital signatures.
> I don't really want Google or Apple or whoever has, for idiosyncratic reasons, possession of a private key, to sign every request I make to Google Calendar, because they will inevitably revoke it sooner for obnoxious business reasons than any good security reason.
Can you provide more context on this? I would assume asymmetric signing keys are less likely to be revoked than say an HMAC key since an HMAC key must be securely stored at both the client and server whereas you can just put a asymmetric signing key in an HSM at the client and be done with it.
Re:Should I Use jwts For Authentication Tokens?
by radicalbyte on Monday May 27, 2024 @02:43PM
(#40493402)
Which we have in modern computers and mobiles (the EU identity wallet concept is built around them).
Re:Should I Use jwts For Authentication Tokens?
by EthanHeilman on Monday May 27, 2024 @04:33PM
(#40494411)
I thought the EU wallet was using JWTs that attest to public key. You don't use them as bearer tokens, you use them as certificates and then do verifiable credential presentation via proof of possession and SD-JWTs.
Really the ergonomics are why this hasn't been adopted more readily. I wonder why it's possible to have OpenTelemetry inject a header into thousands of different APIs and services for dozens of programming languages, more or less flawlessly. But if I wanted to do this at process boundaries, and the content of my header was the result of a stateless function of the current value of the header (aka token exchange + destination service): you are shit out of luck. Ultimately platform providers like Google, Apple and Meta lose their power when people do this, so I feel like the most sophisticated and cranky agitators are more or less right that the user experience is subordinate to the S&P top 10's bottom line, not real security concerns.