paseto

g, there are two orthogonal arguments that JWT defenders seem to conflate: 1. Don't misuse JWT in places it wasn't designed for. <- You are here 2. JWT is an error-prone cryptographic design and should be replaced with a better standard. You can agree with one without agreeing with the other. > Maybe JWTs don't make as. much sense for HTTP but for WebSockets they are absolitely crucial. Would PASETO be a better fit than JWT for your envisioned WebSockets use case? https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs

r as a data mule for the entirety of session state rather than "look up this identifier in a database". In those use-cases, you enter the usual JWT abuse territory, as outlined here: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/06/19/stop-using-jwt-fo... In this genre, we're working on PAST (although this is probably going to be renamed before it's finalized) to solve the cryptography flaws baked into the JWT standards (collectively, JOSE): https://github.com/paragonie/past That doesn't solve the "replay attack" issue (which may be what you were referring to with bearer tokens). > OH AND YOU SHOULD ALSO BE USING A PRIVATE KEY PER USER TO ENCRYPT DATA AT REST ON YOUR DATABASE, AND STORE THIS KEY IN THE DB MULTIPLE TIMES - EACH ONE ENCRYPTED BY THE USER'S DEVICE KEY. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. If I needed to share a key across devices, I'd either use Diffie-Hellman or Shamir Secret Sharing to accomplish the task (depending on use-case and threat model). Perhaps there's a lot of implementation detail that's not being discussed here that I'm missing and what you're saying is a conservative local maximum, but it stuck out a tad bit.