JWT check nbf/exp #149
Merged
JWT check nbf/exp #149
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #149 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 76.48% 76.51% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 44 44
Lines 4699 4713 +14
Branches 982 989 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 3594 3606 +12
Misses 810 810
- Partials 295 297 +2
|
…r better performance
|
I think nbf/exp checking should be on by default. |
rohe
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
nbfandexpclaims on JWT unpackiaton JWT packDiscussion: Do we want
nbf/expchecking turned on by default (RFC 7519 compliant) or optional? One option would be to require thetimestampparameter to be set for time verification.