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

[8.x] [JWT Integration] Fix for error handling in ParseWithClaims can lead to potentially dangerous situations #42241

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ngadeg
Copy link

@ngadeg ngadeg commented Jan 7, 2025

Proposed commit message

Unclear documentation of the error behavior in ParseWithClaims can lead to situation where users are potentially not checking errors in the way they should be. Especially, if a token is both expired and invalid, the errors returned by ParseWithClaims return both error codes. If users only check for the jwt.ErrTokenExpired using error.Is, they will ignore the embedded jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid and thus potentially accept invalid tokens.

token, err := /* jwt.Parse or similar */
if token.Valid {
	fmt.Println("You look nice today")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenMalformed) {
	fmt.Println("That's not even a token")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenUnverifiable) {
	fmt.Println("We could not verify this token")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid) {
	fmt.Println("This token has an invalid signature")
} else if errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenExpired) || errors.Is(err, jwt.ErrTokenNotValidYet) {
	// Token is either expired or not active yet
	fmt.Println("Timing is everything")
} else {
	fmt.Println("Couldn't handle this token:", err)
}

WeaknessCWE-347
WeaknessCWE-755
\

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added an entry in CHANGELOG.next.asciidoc or CHANGELOG-developer.next.asciidoc.

@ngadeg ngadeg requested a review from a team as a code owner January 7, 2025 14:48
@botelastic botelastic bot added the needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label label Jan 7, 2025
Copy link

cla-checker-service bot commented Jan 7, 2025

💚 CLA has been signed

@botelastic
Copy link

botelastic bot commented Jan 7, 2025

This pull request doesn't have a Team:<team> label.

@mergify mergify bot assigned ngadeg Jan 7, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jan 7, 2025

This pull request does not have a backport label.
If this is a bug or security fix, could you label this PR @ngadeg? 🙏.
For such, you'll need to label your PR with:

  • The upcoming major version of the Elastic Stack
  • The upcoming minor version of the Elastic Stack (if you're not pushing a breaking change)

To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

  • backport-8./d is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jan 7, 2025

backport-8.x has been added to help with the transition to the new branch 8.x.
If you don't need it please use backport-skip label and remove the backport-8.x label.

@mergify mergify bot added the backport-8.x Automated backport to the 8.x branch with mergify label Jan 7, 2025
Copy link

@kaltaranodua kaltaranodua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixes vulnerability identified as CVE-2024-51744. This update addresses the issue with great improvements and ensures better security.

@ngadeg
Copy link
Author

ngadeg commented Jan 7, 2025

/cla

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport-8.x Automated backport to the 8.x branch with mergify needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants