-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 162
Conversation
Move form JWT: https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go to Community maintained clone https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go for CVE's reported by Dependabot
Typo here, I think you mean that this PR switches from https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go to the community maintained https://github.com/golang-jwt/jwt. Would like to see this merged so that we can continue to use this library without forking |
It would be great to see this merged so that we don't have to switch to a fork. |
For this particular fix you wouldn't need to. A replace on the affected downstream library will do it. Just add this to your go.mod: replace github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go => github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4 v4.2.0 |
@james-d-elliott, thanks for mentioning that. I hadn't looked closely enough at the PR to realize that |
Yep github.com/golang-jwt/jwt is the "official" community fork of the original and the original is officially unmtaintained. See dgrijalva/jwt-go#462 for more info. The main difference between v3 and v4 is that v3 didn't properly setup the module path (hence the Also just as an educated guess, since the JWT lib is only used for MDS, I don't believe the CVE actually affects this library directly. |
I just got write access to this repo so I can at least merge PRs. I am not in a position to actually review code beyond a PR like this (I'm just not knowledgeable in Golang) so I'll be relying on feedback from @nicksteele and other maintainers to gauge which PR's are suitable to merge. That said this PR seems fine to me. I'm considering merging this and closing #95 since this PR updates to a more recent version of |
Yeah that seems like the best course of action in my opinion. For reference I'd rate #93 as the most important fix outstanding by the way, and it's a really small change that Nick should be able to review relatively quickly. The change in this PR updates a library for a CVE that actually doesn't affect this repos usage of the library, at least as far as I can tell. See here for the CVE description: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-26160 But your usage is actually for parsing MDS data, which I don't believe uses audience and would generally not need validation (of the audience) since you're validating the signature and only using the information for metadata, not authorization/access. |
Move form JWT: https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go to Community maintained clone https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go for CVE's reported by Dependabot