Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes but you're missing an entire chunk of context. The problem mentioned in this article is saying it's bad that you can't invalidate a JWT WHEN using them for authentication and/or authorization. This makes it impossible to do things like disable/kill a session that has been deemed hostile or dangerous (like a stolen account).

Now to build on this, good defense-in-depth can help here. For example if you use JWT only for authn but kept authz 100% server-side. You could then revoke the users access to everything so that the blast radius is confined. The bad actor could still authenticate into the system but would not have access to much or any resources.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: