安裝中文字典英文字典辭典工具!
安裝中文字典英文字典辭典工具!
|
- authentication - Why is Bearer required before the token in . . .
Long before bearer authorization, this header was used for Basic authentication For interoperability, the use of these headers is governed by W3C norms, so even if you're reading and writing the header, you should follow them Bearer distinguishes the type of Authorization you're using, so it's important Basic authentication looks like this:
- oauth - JWT-bearer grant with JWT assertion vs. client credentials . . .
Note that the JWT bearer token doesn't contain the client credentials and may have to be combined with client authentication For example, in the Microsoft On-Behalf-Of flow, the authorization server expects both a JWT bearer token as part of the grant and client credentials for authentication (either a shared secret or another JWT bearer token)
- Will Authorization: Bearer in request header fix CSRF attacks?
Yes An attacker can't make a browser send a request that includes the authorization header with the correct bearer token This is for two reasons: The attacker can't set the authorization header The attacker doesn't know the correct value of the token, so they wouldn't know what to set it to
- What are the alternatives for a bearer token mechanism?
There's HMAC signature based authentication With HMAC signature, the secret token is never sent over the wire, but instead the message only contains the MAC signature, which is valid only for that particular message and cannot be copied to a different message
- cookies - Do I need CSRF token if Im using Bearer JWT? - Information . . .
Therefore, I would re-word the quote from your article slightly: it isn't that Bearer Tokens are the best defense against CSRF attacks, but simply that CSRF is an attack vector that specifically attacks requests where the browser automatically provides authentication (typically cookies and basic authentication), and so CSRF doesn't matter if
- Multiple Bearer keywords in single Authorization header
The Bearer string by itself neither adds nor reduces security, the relevant information are all contained in the JWT itself Sure, it might be that this behavior is connected to a specific implementation which then results in a vulnerability in another place, but acceptance of multiple or none Bearer by itself does not result in a problem
- logging - Is it ok to write OidC Bearer token to log? - Information . . .
Because that is your two worries; that the log reveals quite a bit of personal information a out your users, and the tokens are effectively valid passwords (bearer authorizations) until they expire We only log the token ID (jit) to operational logs, but keep the full token in a secure event store in case the full token is necessary for
- oauth - How to safely store bearer tokens on server? - Information . . .
Since the bearer token authenticates (and authorizes) clients, you need to store it safely, like you would store a password However, while passwords are salted + hashed before saving them to disk, they are also looked up by their corresponding principal (username email-address), rather than by the secure representation of the password
|
|
|