jwt/parser.go

180 lines
5.6 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

package jwt
import (
"bytes"
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"strings"
)
type Parser struct {
// If populated, only these methods will be considered valid.
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
validMethods []string
// Use JSON Number format in JSON decoder.
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
useJSONNumber bool
// Skip claims validation during token parsing.
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
skipClaimsValidation bool
validator *validator
}
// NewParser creates a new Parser with the specified options
func NewParser(options ...ParserOption) *Parser {
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
p := &Parser{
validator: &validator{},
}
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
// Loop through our parsing options and apply them
for _, option := range options {
option(p)
}
return p
}
// Parse parses, validates, verifies the signature and returns the parsed token.
// keyFunc will receive the parsed token and should return the key for validating.
func (p *Parser) Parse(tokenString string, keyFunc Keyfunc) (*Token, error) {
return p.ParseWithClaims(tokenString, MapClaims{}, keyFunc)
}
// ParseWithClaims parses, validates, and verifies like Parse, but supplies a default object implementing the Claims
// interface. This provides default values which can be overridden and allows a caller to use their own type, rather
// than the default MapClaims implementation of Claims.
//
// Note: If you provide a custom claim implementation that embeds one of the standard claims (such as RegisteredClaims),
// make sure that a) you either embed a non-pointer version of the claims or b) if you are using a pointer, allocate the
// proper memory for it before passing in the overall claims, otherwise you might run into a panic.
func (p *Parser) ParseWithClaims(tokenString string, claims Claims, keyFunc Keyfunc) (*Token, error) {
token, parts, err := p.ParseUnverified(tokenString, claims)
if err != nil {
return token, err
}
// Verify signing method is in the required set
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
if p.validMethods != nil {
var signingMethodValid = false
var alg = token.Method.Alg()
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
for _, m := range p.validMethods {
if m == alg {
signingMethodValid = true
break
}
}
if !signingMethodValid {
// signing method is not in the listed set
return token, NewValidationError(fmt.Sprintf("signing method %v is invalid", alg), ValidationErrorSignatureInvalid)
}
}
// Lookup key
var key interface{}
if keyFunc == nil {
// keyFunc was not provided. short circuiting validation
return token, NewValidationError("no Keyfunc was provided.", ValidationErrorUnverifiable)
}
if key, err = keyFunc(token); err != nil {
// keyFunc returned an error
if ve, ok := err.(*ValidationError); ok {
return token, ve
}
return token, &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorUnverifiable}
}
vErr := &ValidationError{}
// Validate Claims
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
if !p.skipClaimsValidation {
// Make sure we have at least a default validator
if p.validator == nil {
p.validator = newValidator()
}
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
if err := p.validator.Validate(claims); err != nil {
// If the Claims Valid returned an error, check if it is a validation error,
// If it was another error type, create a ValidationError with a generic ClaimsInvalid flag set
if e, ok := err.(*ValidationError); !ok {
vErr = &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorClaimsInvalid}
} else {
vErr = e
}
}
}
// Perform validation
token.Signature = parts[2]
if err = token.Method.Verify(strings.Join(parts[0:2], "."), token.Signature, key); err != nil {
vErr.Inner = err
vErr.Errors |= ValidationErrorSignatureInvalid
}
if vErr.valid() {
token.Valid = true
return token, nil
}
return token, vErr
}
// ParseUnverified parses the token but doesn't validate the signature.
//
// WARNING: Don't use this method unless you know what you're doing.
//
// It's only ever useful in cases where you know the signature is valid (because it has
// been checked previously in the stack) and you want to extract values from it.
func (p *Parser) ParseUnverified(tokenString string, claims Claims) (token *Token, parts []string, err error) {
parts = strings.Split(tokenString, ".")
if len(parts) != 3 {
return nil, parts, NewValidationError("token contains an invalid number of segments", ValidationErrorMalformed)
}
token = &Token{Raw: tokenString}
// parse Header
var headerBytes []byte
if headerBytes, err = DecodeSegment(parts[0]); err != nil {
if strings.HasPrefix(strings.ToLower(tokenString), "bearer ") {
return token, parts, NewValidationError("tokenstring should not contain 'bearer '", ValidationErrorMalformed)
}
return token, parts, &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorMalformed}
}
if err = json.Unmarshal(headerBytes, &token.Header); err != nil {
return token, parts, &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorMalformed}
}
// parse Claims
var claimBytes []byte
token.Claims = claims
if claimBytes, err = DecodeSegment(parts[1]); err != nil {
return token, parts, &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorMalformed}
}
dec := json.NewDecoder(bytes.NewBuffer(claimBytes))
New validation API (#236) * New Validation API Some guidelines in designing the new validation API * Previously, the `Valid` method was placed on the claim, which was always not entirely semantically correct, since the validity is concerning the token, not the claims. Although the validity of the token is based on the processing of the claims (such as `exp`). Therefore, the function `Valid` was removed from the `Claims` interface and the single canonical way to retrieve the validity of the token is to retrieve the `Valid` property of the `Token` struct. * The previous fact was enhanced by the fact that most claims implementations had additional exported `VerifyXXX` functions, which are now removed * All validation errors should be comparable with `errors.Is` to determine, why a particular validation has failed * Developers want to adjust validation options. Popular options include: * Leeway when processing exp, nbf, iat * Not verifying `iat`, since this is actually just an informational claim. When purely looking at the standard, this should probably the default * Verifying `aud` by default, which actually the standard sort of demands. We need to see how strong we want to enforce this * Developers want to create their own claim types, mostly by embedding one of the existing types such as `RegisteredClaims`. * Sometimes there is the need to further tweak the validation of a token by checking the value of a custom claim. Previously, this was possibly by overriding `Valid`. However, this was error-prone, e.g., if the original `Valid` was not called. Therefore, we should provide an easy way for *additional* checks, without by-passing the necessary validations This leads to the following two major changes: * The `Claims` interface now represents a set of functions that return the mandatory claims represented in a token, rather than just a `Valid` function. This is also more semantically correct. * All validation tasks are offloaded to a new (optional) `validator`, which can also be configured with appropriate options. If no custom validator was supplied, a default one is used. Co-authored-by: Micah Parks <66095735+MicahParks@users.noreply.github.com>
2022-12-05 16:56:21 +03:00
if p.useJSONNumber {
dec.UseNumber()
}
// JSON Decode. Special case for map type to avoid weird pointer behavior
if c, ok := token.Claims.(MapClaims); ok {
err = dec.Decode(&c)
} else {
err = dec.Decode(&claims)
}
// Handle decode error
if err != nil {
return token, parts, &ValidationError{Inner: err, Errors: ValidationErrorMalformed}
}
// Lookup signature method
if method, ok := token.Header["alg"].(string); ok {
if token.Method = GetSigningMethod(method); token.Method == nil {
return token, parts, NewValidationError("signing method (alg) is unavailable.", ValidationErrorUnverifiable)
}
} else {
return token, parts, NewValidationError("signing method (alg) is unspecified.", ValidationErrorUnverifiable)
}
return token, parts, nil
}