-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
feat(token-handler): distinguish public and confidential clients #81 #457
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
Open
dsschiramm
wants to merge
5
commits into
node-oauth:master
Choose a base branch
from
dsschiramm:feat/public-confidential-client-distinction
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+135
−26
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c8e51ac
feat(token-handler): distinguish public and confidential clients #81
dsschiramm 4137d45
Merge branch 'master' into feat/public-confidential-client-distinction
jankapunkt a0447b6
Potential fix for pull request finding
dsschiramm e0b27c6
refactor(token-handler): remove redundant PKCE check for client_id re…
dsschiramm b90e3cf
Merge branch 'master' into feat/public-confidential-client-distinction
jankapunkt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you please elaborate why this is now fully omitted? The role of PKCE is especially to protect public clients that cannot safely keep a secret.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
!isPkcecondition has been relocated. Previously,getClientCredentialshad two early-return flows (one for PKCE requests and another for!isClientAuthenticationRequired) that both returned{ clientId }without the secret. I consolidated both into a single return, because the decision regarding whether the secret is required or if the PKCE/public-client status excuse it, now take place ingetClientaftermodel.getClient()executes, since that's the only place client.type (public vs confidential) is known. Therefore, the check has moved but has not disappeared:getClientstill evaluatesisClientAuthenticationRequired(grantType, client) && !credentials.clientSecret && !isPkcebefore accepting a client without a secret, andisClientAuthenticationRequiredchecks if client is public.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change in the validation location is also the reason why I unified the error with the
!clientcase: both throw the sameInvalidClientError('Invalid client: client is invalid'). Otherwise aclient_idthat exists but lacks its required secret would be distinguishable from one that doesn't exist.