Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for using client secret as auth when verifying an exchange token #64

Closed
fisher60 opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #69
Closed

Add support for using client secret as auth when verifying an exchange token #64

fisher60 opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #69
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@fisher60
Copy link
Member

fisher60 commented Nov 7, 2023

Summary

Currently we require the developer application to exchange their refresh token for an AbandonAuth JWT access token. This access token is sent as header auth when verifying an exchange token.

A more standard way to do this is to exchange the token in a post request where the developer application provides its application ID and client secret in the body, rather than header auth.

We can add support for this type of auth and also maintain the existing header auth. The header auth should be safer/more secure as it utilizes a shorter-lived access token and limits the exposure of the permanent client secret. We can make it optional if users wish to use the client secret as auth in the request body or would prefer the slightly more secure method of using an access token in the headers.

Acceptance Criteria

  1. A new method to authorize exists for this function that allows the user to provide their client secret and application ID in the body of the post request instead of as an authorization header.
  2. The existing header auth is also allowed for authorization instead of the post request body
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
2 participants