Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 6, 2023. It is now read-only.

Not compatible with authorization server #57

Closed
DPflasterer opened this issue Sep 15, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

Not compatible with authorization server #57

DPflasterer opened this issue Sep 15, 2020 · 10 comments

Comments

@DPflasterer
Copy link

DPflasterer commented Sep 15, 2020

Is there a reason this library is not compatible with the default authorization server?

It looks like the only difference is the "well known" address:
https://${yourOktaDomain}/.well-known/openid-configuration
vs
https://${yourOktaDomain}/oauth2/${authServerId}/.well-known/openid-configuration

Essentially, if not private it should use the domain and not the issuer to get the config and everything else should work, right? This seems easily doable by adding a setPublic flag on the JwtVerifierBuilder, or parsing the issuer for the authServerId and if one isn't set fall back on the default.

I see in these tickets 19 and 50 that this has been brought up before and the solution was to throw an exception instead of supporting the default authorization server.

Why?

@bretterer
Copy link
Contributor

@DPflasterer Thank you for reporting this. In theory, this would work, but there is issues with validating the tokens against our org authorization server. There is the potential that you can get this working this way, but the intended use of the library was built around API Access Management.

I am going to play around with this for a little bit and see if I can get something working for you in the organizations authorization server. in the mean time, have you tried setting your issuer to only be https://${yourOktaDomain}?

@DPflasterer
Copy link
Author

DPflasterer commented Sep 15, 2020

@bretterer Yes, I have tried that. It fails with a similar but different error. I have not had a chance to troubleshoot deeper than that.

Fatal error: Uncaught UnexpectedValueException: "kid" invalid, unable to lookup correct key in /app/vendor/firebase/php-jwt/src/JWT.php:112
Stack trace:
#0 /app/vendor/okta/jwt-verifier/src/Adaptors/FirebasePhpJwt.php(54): Firebase\JWT\JWT::decode('eyJraWQiOiJuYXV...', Array, Array)
#1 /app/vendor/okta/jwt-verifier/src/JwtVerifier.php(104): Okta\JwtVerifier\Adaptors\FirebasePhpJwt->decode('eyJraWQiOiJuYXV...', Array)

@jimhlad
Copy link

jimhlad commented Feb 24, 2021

I am also running into the issues outlined by @DPflasterer .

@bretterer I was just curious if there are any additional steps we can take to resolve this issue?

@roy-pon
Copy link

roy-pon commented Feb 1, 2022

@DPflasterer Thank you for reporting this. In theory, this would work, but there is issues with validating the tokens against our org authorization server. There is the potential that you can get this working this way, but the intended use of the library was built around API Access Management.

I am going to play around with this for a little bit and see if I can get something working for you in the organizations authorization server. in the mean time, have you tried setting your issuer to only be https://${yourOktaDomain}?

@bretterer any updates on this? Like to use this package with the default authorization server because we don't have a license for the API Access Management

@bretterer
Copy link
Contributor

Currently there is no update on this. The only way for this library to function correctly is to use API Access Management.

@roy-pon
Copy link

roy-pon commented Feb 2, 2022

Thanks for the quick response, any good sources I can use like another library or something like that by any change?

@bretterer
Copy link
Contributor

@roy-pon If you are looking for basic JWT validation, you can take a look at any of the great libraries listed at https://jwt.io/libraries?language=PHP

@agawronski
Copy link
Contributor

agawronski commented Mar 2, 2022

@bretterer I think the very first thing on the README should state that this does not work without custom authorization servers so that people don't waste their time.

@agawronski
Copy link
Contributor

#102

@bretterer
Copy link
Contributor

Merged into 1.4.0

Thank you!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants