Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reject tokens when claims has an aud, none expected #332

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 16, 2023

Conversation

grahamc
Copy link
Contributor

@grahamc grahamc commented Oct 8, 2023

From the RFC:

Each principal intended to process the JWT MUST
identify itself with a value in the audience claim. If the principal
processing the claim does not identify itself with a value in the
"aud" claim when this claim is present, then the JWT MUST be
rejected.

Closes #329

From the RFC:

> Each principal intended to process the JWT MUST
> identify itself with a value in the audience claim. If the principal
> processing the claim does not identify itself with a value in the
> "aud" claim when this claim is present, then the JWT MUST be
>rejected.

Closes Keats#329
@Keats
Copy link
Owner

Keats commented Oct 11, 2023

Thanks. That's a breaking change so that would be released as v9

@grahamc
Copy link
Contributor Author

grahamc commented Oct 11, 2023

Thanks, @Keats! Do you have a timeline or process for these sorts of things, or is it something that "just happens" from time to time? Just curious to set my own expectations.

@Keats
Copy link
Owner

Keats commented Oct 11, 2023

Probably this week if i don't forget about it in the meantime

@Keats Keats merged commit a55b45c into Keats:master Oct 16, 2023
5 checks passed
@grahamc
Copy link
Contributor Author

grahamc commented Oct 16, 2023

Thank you greatly!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

jsonwebtoken::Validation could help users implement the spec more correctly
2 participants