spec

Honestly, I find that PASETO [0] is a better candidate to replace JWTs since it supports encrypting these tokens and doesn't have multiple ciphers to choose from, unlike JWTs. They can be used just like them for signing, etc just without the weak cryptography in the token. Fernet [1] was close to being an alternative but I've seen that even Branca [2] tokens look much more like a saner alternative for replacing JWTs. [0] - https://paseto.io [1] - https://github.com/fernet/spec [2] - https://branca.io

> Their docs also cover how not to store a JWT as well. Well, it tells you something about that JWTs allow more ways to misuse the token spec which already makes it a bad standard. alg = none is still in the standard, no encryption by default and there is no sane cryptographic choice to sign/encrypt the JWT, which allows developers to shoot themselves in the foot as what we have here with using it with sessions. Fernet [0] was the closest to being a successor of a better standard, but I believe PASETO [1] or even Branca [2] tokens look much more better alternative for JWTs. If not, then the good old session cookie may suffice even. [0] - https://github.com/fernet/spec [1] - https://paseto.io [2] - https://branca.io

After reading the pitfalls and mitigations section, I'm starting to wonder why JWTs/JWEs/etc are even adopted despite these attacks demonstrated by many cryptographers mentioned in this book. Since JWTs allow for a choice of algorithms (algorithm agility) to sign/verify the tokens, it allows room for many developers to shoot themselves in the foot in securing these tokens, hence the multiple vulnerabilities documented in this book. It's worth looking at better alternatives that are more cryptographically secure and have sane defaults than JWTs these days. I'd rather use either PASETO [0], Branca [1] or Fernet [2] Tokens at this point. [0] https://paseto.io/ [1] https://branca.io/ [2] https://github.com/fernet/spec/