[Pulp-dev] Pulp3 - JWT Authorization Header

[David Davis]

I dug into this and it looks like it’s as easy as
setting JWT_AUTH_HEADER_PREFIX to “Bearer”[0]. So +1 from me.

http://getblimp.github.io/django-rest-framework-jwt/#additional-settings


David

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be ideal if we used 'Bearer: ' instead of 'JWT: '. If
>> you use our docs, you'll be able to submit your JWT correctly. If you say
>> 'oh I see Pulp uses JWT' and you follow the example in the official (I
>> think?) JWT site [0] you'll submit a JWT to Pulp using those docs it won't
>> work. This is also a problem in practice; I've heard of two separate
>> occasions where JWT was thought to be broken because it was submitted
>> 'Bearer: ' which Pulp wants 'JWT: '.
>>
>> The reasoning for the plugin to choose JWT over Bearer has to do with
>> their goals of being able to be used side-by-side a OAuth2 *and* allow your
>> auth types to be in any order. I don't think this affects Pulp because Pulp
>> isn't supporting OAuth2 anytime soon if ever, and even if we do, I don't
>> think that's a good reason to invent a new way to submit a JWT (which they
>> did).
>>
>> I'm +1 to filing a story against Pulp to configure our usage of the
>> plugin to have the JWT be submitted using 'Bearer: ' instead of 'JWT: '.
>> Shall I file this? What do you all think?
>>
>>
> +1 to this as well.
>
>
>
>> [0]: https://jwt.io/introduction/
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:03 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There was some discussion on the PR about this:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3109#discussion_r138202256
>>>
>>> Basically the package we’re using decided on JWT. See their reasoning
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/GetBlimp/django-rest-framework-jwt/pull/4
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Kersom Moura Oliveira <
>>> kersom at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that JWT authorization header was adopted as the default one
>>>> for Pulp3. [0]
>>>>
>>>> Also I read in a few places about Bearer authorization header,  as the
>>>> typical one used for JWT.[1]
>>>>
>>>> Is there a specific reason to chose one over the other in Pulp3?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration_guid
>>>> e/rest_api/authentication.html#using-a-token
>>>> [1] https://jwt.io/introduction/
>>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6750
>>>> [3 ]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7523
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171030/7ea52155/attachment.htm>