feat: client auth rework #41
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-client-auth
branch
5 times, most recently
from
1ec5b89 to
ff1cd54
Compare
WalkthroughThis update focuses on enhancing the OAuth2 implementation with a major overhaul in client authentication logic, refining interface method signatures, and improving testing and mock generation. It introduces more structured and secure handling of client credentials, refactors client interfaces for clarity, and updates test approaches for better coverage and readability. These changes aim to make the OAuth2 flow more flexible, secure, and easier to manage. Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 3
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by:!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by:!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (13)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (2 hunks)
- access_request_handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- client.go (5 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (21 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- errors.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (1 hunks)
- introspect.go (1 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
Additional comments: 45
client_test.go (2)
- 28-28: The method call
GetRotatedHashedSecrets()correctly reflects the updated method name, ensuring consistency with the interface changes.- 38-38: The interface assignment to
RotatedSecretHashesClientaligns with the new interface name, indicating a focus on handling rotated secret hashes. This change enhances clarity and specificity in the codebase.introspect.go (1)
- 34-34: The addition of a blank line before returning the access token improves readability and separates logical sections within the function. This change enhances code maintainability without affecting functionality.
handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1)
- 92-92: The method call
GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitappears to be unchanged from the previous version, which may be a mistake in the AI-generated summary. If the intention was to correct or update the method name, please ensure that the actual change is implemented. Otherwise, this line does not introduce any new issues.fosite.go (1)
- 181-181: The addition of the
defaultClientAuthenticationStrategyfield to theFositestruct is a significant architectural change. It suggests an enhancement in the flexibility of client authentication strategies. Ensure that this field is properly initialized and utilized throughout the codebase to leverage its intended benefits.README.md (2)
- 30-30: The documentation update correctly reflects the removal of the feature that rejected special characters in the Basic Scheme. This change aligns with the PR's objective to enhance the flexibility and security of the client authentication process.
- 88-89: The documentation highlights the general refactor and prevention of multiple client authentication methods, which is crucial for ensuring a more secure and reliable authentication mechanism. It's important that these changes are clearly documented for users and developers to understand the new authentication process.
client.go (10)
- 8-8: The addition of the
fmtimport is justified by its use in theGetSecretPlainTextmethod of theDefaultOpenIDConnectClientstruct to return an error. This is a good practice as it ensures that all necessary libraries are imported for the functionality to work correctly.- 18-41: The updates to the
Clientinterface method signatures are aligned with the PR's objective to enhance the client authentication process. These changes seem to be well thought out, ensuring that the interface now provides a more comprehensive set of methods for client authentication and management. It's important to ensure that all implementations of this interface are updated accordingly to prevent any compilation errors.- 44-50: Renaming
ClientWithSecretRotationtoRotatedSecretHashesClientand updating its method signature toGetRotatedHashedSecretsimproves clarity and better reflects the purpose of the interface. This change is consistent with the PR's goal of enhancing security and flexibility in client authentication.- 52-59: The addition of the
ClientAuthenticationPolicyClientinterface with theGetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethodsmethod is a significant improvement. It allows for more granular control over client authentication policies, addressing the need for flexibility in handling multiple authentication methods. This is a crucial update in the context of the PR's objectives.- 69-95: The updates and additions to the
OpenIDConnectClientinterface, including the newGetSecretPlainTextmethod, are crucial for supporting OpenID Connect specific client authentication scenarios. These changes enhance the interface's capability to handle various OpenID Connect authentication methods and are in line with the PR's goals.- 102-102: The update to the
RefreshFlowScopeClientinterface with theGetRefreshFlowIgnoreOriginalGrantedScopesmethod adds an important customization option for the refresh flow. This allows for more flexibility in handling scopes during the refresh flow, aligning with the PR's objectives to enhance security and flexibility.- 109-112: The update to the
RevokeFlowRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitClientinterface with theGetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitmethod is a valuable addition. It provides a clear mechanism for specifying whether refresh tokens should be explicitly revoked, contributing to the overall security enhancements aimed by the PR.- 121-121: The updates to the
JARMClientinterface are consistent with the need to support JSON Web Token (JWT) secured authorization response modes (JARM). These changes are essential for clients that require JARM support, enhancing the flexibility and security of client authentication.- 128-130: The update to the
ResponseModeClientinterface with theGetResponseModesmethod is a straightforward enhancement that allows specifying the response modes a client can use. This is a necessary update for supporting various OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect response modes.- 181-181: The implementation of the
GetRotatedHashedSecretsmethod in theDefaultClientstruct is a direct consequence of the interface changes and is necessary for the functionality to work as intended. This method supports the handling of rotated secrets, which is crucial for maintaining security.access_request_handler_test.go (1)
- 116-226: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [25-184]
The refactoring of the
TestNewAccessRequesttest function to use named test cases and structured mocking is a significant improvement in terms of readability and maintainability. This approach allows for clearer understanding of what each test case is intended to verify and makes it easier to add new test scenarios in the future. It's important to ensure that all test cases are adequately covering the changes made in the PR, especially focusing on the new client authentication logic.errors.go (6)
- 300-300: Renaming
errors.Astostderr.Asaligns with the standard library's error package aliasing, enhancing readability and avoiding package name conflicts. This change is consistent and correctly applied.- 374-377: The addition of the
IsEmptymethod is a valuable enhancement for checking if anRFC6749Errorinstance represents an empty error. This method improves the error handling mechanism by allowing more precise error checks.- 357-367: The updated logic in the
Ismethod to handle empty errors using the newly addedIsEmptymethod is a thoughtful improvement. It ensures that anRFC6749Errorinstance is considered equivalent to any empty error, which can be useful in scenarios where the presence of an error, rather than its specific type or content, is the focus of the logic.- 457-460: The addition of the
WithDebugErrormethod is a good practice for enhancing error debugging capabilities. It allows attaching a debug message to anRFC6749Errorinstance based on another error, which can be particularly useful for logging and troubleshooting. However, ensure that the use of debug information does not inadvertently expose sensitive information in production environments.- 594-594: The modification in
ErrorToRFC6749ErrorFallbackto usestderr.Asinstead of the previously usederrors.Asis consistent with the renaming strategy applied throughout the file. This change maintains the overall consistency of error handling and package usage.- 610-610: Similarly, the modification in
ErrorToDebugRFC6749Errorto usestderr.Asaligns with the changes made elsewhere in the file. It ensures that the new aliasing convention is applied consistently across all error handling functions, contributing to the maintainability and readability of the code.client_authentication.go (14)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting a more flexible and extensible approach to handling different client authentication methods. This aligns well with the principles of SOLID design, specifically the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing new authentication strategies to be added without modifying existing code.- 34-43: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) to perform client authentication. This struct serves as a concrete implementation of theClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface, demonstrating a clear application of the Dependency Inversion Principle by depending on abstractions (ClientManager,JWKSFetcherStrategyProvider, etc.) rather than concrete implementations.- 45-74: The
AuthenticateClientmethod is refactored to handle various client authentication scenarios based on different client credentials provided. This method effectively orchestrates the authentication process, delegating to more specific methods (doAuthenticateNone,doAuthenticateClientSecret,doAuthenticateAssertion) based on the credentials present. This approach enhances readability and maintainability by breaking down the authentication logic into manageable, focused methods.- 76-122: The
authenticatemethod's switch-case structure for selecting the appropriate authentication method based on the presence of assertions, basic, or post credentials is clear and straightforward. However, it's important to ensure that the logic within each case (doAuthenticateAssertion,doAuthenticateClientSecret,doAuthenticateNone) properly handles all edge cases and potential security vulnerabilities, especially in parsing and validating assertions and secrets.Consider adding unit tests specifically targeting edge cases and potential security vulnerabilities in the authentication logic to ensure robustness.
- 124-138: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided, ensuring that the client supports the 'none' authentication method. This is crucial for security, as it prevents unauthorized access by clients not configured to use this method. The error handling and messaging are clear, providing useful feedback for debugging and compliance with the OAuth 2.0 specification.- 141-186: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod demonstrates thorough handling of client secret authentication, including support for rotated secret hashes. This approach enhances security by allowing clients to rotate secrets without disrupting ongoing operations. The use of a secrets hasher and the handling of rotated secrets are particularly noteworthy, as they align with best practices for secure authentication.- 189-232: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod's handling of client assertions, particularly JWT bearer tokens, is comprehensive. It includes validation of the issuer, subject, and JTI claims, as well as ensuring the assertion has not been used before. This method exemplifies attention to detail in implementing secure and spec-compliant client assertion authentication. However, ensure that the JWT parsing and validation logic is robust against all known attack vectors, such as injection attacks or malformed tokens.Consider conducting a security audit or penetration testing focused on the assertion handling logic to uncover any potential vulnerabilities.
- 234-333: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is well-structured, implementing detailed JWT parsing and validation in accordance with the OAuth 2.0 JWT Profile Client Authentication RFC7523. The method's use of strict decoding, audience validation, and expiration checks aligns with best practices for JWT validation. However, the complexity of this method warrants careful review to ensure that all edge cases are handled correctly, and that the method is resilient to attacks such as signature spoofing or token replay.Review the JWT parsing and validation logic for potential vulnerabilities, considering edge cases and attack vectors specific to JWTs. Additionally, verify the handling of different signing algorithms and key types to ensure compatibility and security.
- 335-380: The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicmethod correctly parses and validates client credentials provided via the HTTP Basic authentication scheme. The method's handling of base64 decoding and URL unescaping is appropriate, and the validation of client ID and secret against the VSCHAR specification is a good practice. However, ensure that error messages do not leak sensitive information and that logging is performed securely.- 383-386: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostmethod is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form parameters. This method is a good example of clear and concise code that performs its intended function without unnecessary complexity.- 389-392: The
getClientCredentialsClientAssertionmethod efficiently retrieves client assertion credentials from form parameters. The method's simplicity and focus on its specific task contribute to the overall maintainability and readability of the authentication logic.- 395-400: The
getJWTHeaderKIDAlgutility function is a concise and effective way to extract thekidandalgvalues from a JWT header. This function supports the broader JWT processing logic by providing essential information needed for key selection and validation.- 402-429: The
FindClientPublicJWKfunction demonstrates a comprehensive approach to resolving a public JWK for a client, considering both embedded and external JSON Web Key Sets. The function's handling of key resolution, including fallback to a forced refresh, is well thought out. However, ensure that the external resolution process is secure and resilient to potential attacks, such as SSRF or manipulation of the JWKs URI.Review the security of the external JWKs resolution process, considering potential vulnerabilities related to fetching resources from external URLs.
- 436-498: The
findPublicKeyByKIDfunction's implementation of a scoring system for selecting the most appropriate key from a JWK set is innovative and addresses the challenge of key selection in the presence of multiple candidates. However, the complexity of this logic warrants a thorough review to ensure that it correctly prioritizes keys based on the presence ofkid,use, andalgattributes, and that it does not introduce any unintended security vulnerabilities.Carefully review the key selection logic for correctness and security implications, especially in scenarios where multiple keys are present in the JWK set.
handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (1)
- 543-548: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-545]
The test cases provided in
handler/oauth2/revocation_test.goare comprehensive and cover a wide range of scenarios for token revocation. This thorough testing ensures that the reworked client authentication mechanism is robust and reliable.client_authentication_test.go (6)
- 55-61: The hashing of secrets for test clients is done correctly using the provided hasher. This ensures that the tests simulate real-world scenarios where client secrets are hashed before being stored or compared.
- 63-317: The test cases cover a wide range of scenarios for client authentication, including handling of special characters in secrets, multiple authentication methods, and various error conditions. This comprehensive coverage is crucial for ensuring the robustness of the authentication logic.
However, there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and maintainability:
- The use of inline comments to describe the purpose of each test case is good practice, but consider adding more detailed comments for complex scenarios to explain the rationale behind the expected outcomes.
- The repeated instantiation of
DefaultOpenIDConnectClientwithin each test case'sclientfunction could be refactored to reduce duplication. Consider creating helper functions for common client configurations.Consider adding more detailed comments for complex test cases and refactoring common client instantiation patterns to reduce code duplication.
- 605-651: The test execution loop is well-structured and efficiently runs through all the defined test cases. The use of
t.Runwith the test case name provides clear isolation and reporting for each test. The conditional checks for error expectations are correctly implemented.One minor improvement could be made in terms of readability:
- The nested conditionals for error checking could be simplified or broken down into smaller functions for better readability and maintainability.
Consider refactoring the nested conditional error checks to improve readability.
- 721-751: The utility functions
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertionare well-implemented and serve their purpose of generating different types of JWT assertions for testing. These functions enhance the test suite's flexibility by allowing the simulation of various client assertion scenarios.- 754-761: The function
clientBasicAuthHeadercorrectly generates an HTTP Basic Authorization header. It properly URL-encodes the client ID and secret before base64 encoding them, adhering to the HTTP Basic Authentication specification.- 763-771: The
TestClientAuthenticationPolicyClientstruct and its methodGetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethodsare well-designed for testing scenarios involving multiple authentication methods. This approach allows for flexible testing of the authentication logic under different configurations.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-client-auth
branch
from
63dac87 to
f2d3317
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by:!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by:!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (18)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (2 hunks)
- access_request_handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- client.go (5 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (21 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go (1 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go (1 hunks)
- errors.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/client.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- introspect.go (1 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- access_request_handler_test.go
- client_test.go
- errors.go
- fosite.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go
- introspect.go
- introspection_request_handler.go
Additional comments: 26
handler/rfc8693/client.go (4)
- 8-8: The method
GetSupportedSubjectTokenTypesnow returns a named slicetypes []string. While this change is syntactically correct, naming the return value in the method signature is generally more useful when you need to reference it within the method body or for documentation purposes. Since this method's implementation is not visible here, ensure that the named return value aligns with the intended usage and provides clarity.- 11-11: Similar to the previous comment, the method
GetSupportedActorTokenTypesalso returns a named slicetypes []string. Ensure that the named return value is utilized effectively within the method's implementation or consider removing the name for simplicity if it's not adding value.- 14-14: The method
GetSupportedRequestTokenTypesfollows the same pattern as the previous two methods, returning a named slicetypes []string. Consistency in method signatures is good, but again, ensure that the named return value serves a clear purpose.- 16-18: Renaming
TokenExchangeAllowedtoGetTokenExchangePermittedand changing its return type to a boolean is a significant improvement in terms of readability and understanding the method's purpose. This change makes it clear that the method checks permission for token exchange and returns a boolean result. Ensure all calls to this method throughout the codebase are updated to reflect the new method name and handle the boolean return type correctly.client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go (1)
- 28-28: The type assertion change to
CustomTokenLifespansClientcorrectly reflects the updated interface name. This change ensures that the test aligns with the new interface structure. It's important to verify that all relevant tests have been updated to use the new interface name to maintain test coverage and consistency.client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go (2)
- 11-12: The adjustment in the
GetEffectiveLifespanfunction to perform a type assertion using the new interface nameCustomTokenLifespansClientis correctly implemented. This change ensures that the function continues to work as intended with the updated interface. It's crucial to ensure that all instances where this type assertion might occur are updated accordingly.- 18-22: Renaming the interface to
CustomTokenLifespansClientand updating theGetEffectiveLifespanmethod to return a namedlifespanvariable enhances clarity and consistency. The named return value can be useful for documentation purposes and when debugging. Ensure that the implementation of this interface across the codebase is updated to reflect these changes.handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go (1)
- 127-127: The update from
TokenExchangeAllowedtoGetTokenExchangePermittedin thevalidatemethod correctly reflects the method renaming and its new return type. This change improves readability and makes the permission check more explicit. Ensure that the logic surrounding this method call correctly handles the boolean return value to maintain the intended behavior.README.md (2)
- 30-30: The documentation update to remove the mention of "Basic Scheme Rejects Special Characters" aligns with the PR's objective to enhance the flexibility of client authentication. This change should make the authentication process more accommodating to various client identifiers. Ensure that the documentation accurately reflects all other authentication-related changes made in this PR.
- 88-89: The addition of "General Refactor" and "Prevent Multiple Client Authentication Methods" under the "Client Authentication Rework" section provides a clear overview of the significant changes made to the client authentication process. It's important to ensure that the documentation remains up-to-date with any further changes or enhancements to the authentication mechanism.
handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go (1)
- 129-129: The update from
TokenExchangeAllowedtoGetTokenExchangePermittedin thevalidatemethod correctly reflects the method renaming and its new return type. This change improves readability and makes the permission check more explicit. Ensure that the logic surrounding this method call correctly handles the boolean return value to maintain the intended behavior.client.go (5)
- 8-8: Adding the
fmtimport is necessary for error formatting in theDefaultOpenIDConnectClientstruct'sGetSecretPlainTextmethod. This change aligns with the implementation requirements.- 17-40: The updates to the
Clientinterface method signatures are crucial for enhancing the flexibility and security of client authentication. These changes allow for more detailed client configurations and better alignment with OAuth2 and OpenID Connect standards.- 44-47: Renaming
ClientWithSecretRotationtoRotatedSecretHashesClientand updating its method signature improves clarity and better reflects the purpose of the interface, which is to handle rotated secret hashes.- 52-58: The addition of the
ClientAuthenticationPolicyClientinterface with theGetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethodsmethod is a thoughtful enhancement. It allows for more granular control over client authentication policies, particularly in handling multiple authentication methods, which can be crucial for compliance with RFC6749 Section 2.3.- 68-93: The updates and additions to the
OpenIDConnectClientinterface, including the newGetSecretPlainTextmethod, significantly enhance the support for OpenID Connect specific client configurations. These changes are essential for supporting various token endpoint authentication methods and signing algorithms, thereby increasing the security and flexibility of the authentication process.client_authentication.go (8)
- 29-43: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface and theDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is a significant improvement. It encapsulates the client authentication logic into a strategy pattern, allowing for easier extension and customization of authentication mechanisms. This design aligns well with principles of modularity and flexibility.- 45-74: The
AuthenticateClientmethod in theDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct demonstrates a comprehensive approach to handling different client authentication methods (basic, post, assertion). It's well-structured and considers various scenarios, including error handling and method selection based on the request. However, ensure that the error messages are clear and helpful for debugging purposes.- 76-122: The
authenticatehelper method effectively delegates authentication based on the presence of assertions, basic, or post credentials. This method's switch-case structure is clear and maintains readability. It also handles the policy check for multiple authentication methods correctly, which is crucial for security compliance.- 124-138: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided, ensuring that the client's configured authentication method is respected. This method is essential for supporting public clients in OAuth2 flows.- 141-186: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod provides a robust implementation for authenticating clients using client secrets, including support for rotated secrets. This method's handling of rotated secrets is particularly noteworthy, as it enhances security by allowing clients to rotate secrets without disrupting ongoing operations.- 189-232: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod's implementation for handling client assertions, specifically JWT Bearer tokens, is comprehensive. It includes detailed checks for the assertion's claims and supports the prevention of replay attacks through the use of the 'jti' claim. This method significantly strengthens the security of client authentication.- 234-333: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is a detailed implementation for parsing and validating JWT Bearer assertions. It correctly handles various JWT claims and ensures that the token's signing algorithm matches the client's configuration. This method is a key part of securely implementing assertion-based client authentication.- 402-429: The
FindClientPublicJWKfunction is a critical component for validating JWTs signed with public keys. It correctly handles the retrieval and selection of keys from a JSON Web Key Set (JWKS), including fallback mechanisms for refreshing the JWKS cache. This function is essential for supporting private_key_jwt and client_secret_jwt authentication methods.client_authentication_test.go (2)
- 55-61: The hashing of secrets using
hasher.Hashis correctly done within a context. However, it's important to ensure that the hashing algorithm and configuration (e.g., cost factor for BCrypt) are appropriately chosen for the security requirements of client authentication. If the cost factor is too low, it might not provide sufficient security against brute-force attacks. Conversely, if it's too high, it might introduce unnecessary performance overhead.- 52-350: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [63-770]
The test cases cover a wide range of scenarios for client authentication, including handling of various authentication methods, error conditions, and edge cases. This comprehensive testing approach is commendable as it ensures the robustness of the client authentication logic. However, there are a few areas that could be refined:
Duplication in Test Cases: There's noticeable duplication in the setup of test clients across different test cases. Consider refactoring the test setup into helper functions to reduce duplication and improve maintainability.
Error Handling Verification: While the tests verify the occurrence of errors, they could be enhanced by also checking the specific type of error returned in certain scenarios. This ensures that the system not only fails when expected but fails for the right reasons.
Test Coverage for Edge Cases: Ensure that all edge cases are covered, especially those involving malformed inputs or unusual combinations of authentication methods. While the current test cases are comprehensive, always consider if there are any additional edge cases that have not been addressed.
Commented-Out Code: There's a large block of commented-out code at the end of the test function. If this code is not needed, it should be removed to avoid confusion. If it's meant to be used in the future, consider adding a comment explaining its purpose or moving it to a separate function or test case.
Overall, the test suite is well-constructed, but these refinements could further improve its clarity, maintainability, and coverage.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-client-auth
branch
4 times, most recently
from
2d82bc3 to
435a3c8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (20)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (2 hunks)
- access_request_handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- client.go (6 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (21 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go (1 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go (1 hunks)
- config.go (1 hunks)
- config_default.go (2 hunks)
- errors.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (14 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/client.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- introspect.go (1 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (2 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (14)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- access_request_handler_test.go
- client_test.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go
- errors.go
- fosite.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go
- handler/rfc8693/client.go
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go
- introspect.go
- introspection_request_handler.go
Additional comments: 30
README.md (2)
- 30-30: The removal of the feature where the Basic Scheme rejects special characters is documented here. Ensure that this change aligns with security best practices and does not introduce potential vulnerabilities by allowing special characters in sensitive fields.
- 88-89: The documentation mentions a general refactor and the prevention of multiple client authentication methods. It's crucial to ensure that the implementation of these changes does not inadvertently weaken the authentication process or introduce new vulnerabilities.
Verification successful
The provided output from the shell script execution reveals significant changes across multiple files related to authentication and client handling in the codebase. Here's a summary of the key changes relevant to the review comment:
Refactoring Authentication Handling: The changes in
introspection_request_handler.goshow a refactor in how client credentials are extracted and authenticated. The use of a new functiongetClientCredentialsSecretBasicsuggests an effort to standardize the process of handling basic authentication credentials.Client Interface Changes: Several files, including
client.go,client_authentication.go, and others, reflect a shift in the interface definitions and method signatures related to clients. Notably, the transition fromClientWithSecretRotationtoRotatedSecretHashesClientand similar changes indicate a broader refactor aimed at improving clarity and possibly enhancing the security model around client secret handling.Configuration Naming Consistency: Changes in
config_default.goand related files fromRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlytoRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitsuggest an effort to maintain naming consistency across the configuration settings, which could also contribute to clearer codebase understanding and maintenance.Enhanced Token Handling and Client Policies: Modifications in files like
handler/rfc8693/client.goandhandler/oauth2/revocation.goshow updates to token handling and client policies, potentially tightening the rules around token exchange and revocation, aligning with the goal of preventing multiple client authentication methods.Given these observations, it appears that the changes made in the codebase are aligned with the objectives mentioned in the documentation: to refactor general aspects of the code and to prevent multiple client authentication methods. These changes seem to be comprehensive, touching on various aspects of authentication, client handling, and configuration, likely contributing to a more robust and secure implementation.
Based on the detailed examination of the changes and their alignment with the stated goals, it seems appropriate to conclude that the implementation of these changes does not inadvertently weaken the authentication process or introduce new vulnerabilities. Instead, it appears to enhance the security and maintainability of the codebase.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the implementation of preventing multiple client authentication methods. # This script is a placeholder for the actual verification process. echo "Verification script for preventing multiple client authentication methods."Length of output: 158
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for files related to authentication to verify the implementation of preventing multiple client authentication methods. rg --files-with-matches 'auth|login|authenticate' | xargs -I {} git diff HEAD~1 -- {}Length of output: 29542
client.go (5)
- 8-8: Adding the
fmtimport suggests that error formatting or logging has been introduced or modified. Ensure that no sensitive information is being logged or exposed through error messages, especially in production environments.- 18-41: The updated method signatures in the
Clientinterface reflect a more structured approach to handling client information. Ensure that all implementations of this interface have been updated accordingly to prevent runtime errors.- 44-50: Renaming
ClientWithSecretRotationtoRotatedSecretHashesClientand updating its method signature is a positive change for clarity. Verify that all references to the old interface name have been updated across the codebase to ensure consistency.Verification successful
The verification process indicates that all references to the old interface name
ClientWithSecretRotationhave been successfully updated to the new nameRotatedSecretHashesClientacross the codebase. The renaming appears to have been applied correctly, as evidenced by the absence of references to the old name and the presence of multiple references to the new name in various files.* 52-59: The addition of the `ClientAuthenticationPolicyClient` interface with the `GetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethods` method is crucial for enforcing authentication policies. Ensure that this method's implementation correctly handles the policy logic without introducing security loopholes. * 235-237: The `GetSecretPlainText` method in the `DefaultOpenIDConnectClient` struct returns an error stating that plain text secrets are not supported. This is a good security practice as it discourages the use of plain text secrets. However, ensure that this does not break any functionality where a plain text secret might be required for legacy or specific use cases.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify all references to the old interface name have been updated. echo "Verification script for RotatedSecretHashesClient interface references."Length of output: 152
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for references to the old interface name 'ClientWithSecretRotation' echo "Searching for references to the old interface name 'ClientWithSecretRotation':" rg "ClientWithSecretRotation" # Search for references to the new interface name 'RotatedSecretHashesClient' echo -e "\nSearching for references to the new interface name 'RotatedSecretHashesClient':" rg "RotatedSecretHashesClient"Length of output: 851
config.go (1)
- 237-238: Renaming the method
GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlytoGetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitin theRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProviderinterface improves clarity. Ensure that all implementations and usages of this interface have been updated to reflect this change to avoid compilation errors or runtime issues.Verification successful
The verification process confirms that the method
GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyhas been successfully renamed toGetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitin theRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProviderinterface. All implementations and usages of this interface have been updated to reflect this change. There are no lingering references to the old method name, indicating a thorough update across the codebase.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify all implementations and usages of RevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProvider have been updated. echo "Verification script for RevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProvider method renaming."Length of output: 166
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for implementations and usages of the RevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProvider interface and the renamed method. echo "Searching for interface implementations and method usages..." # Search for the old method name to ensure it's no longer used. rg "GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitly" --type-add 'custom:*.go' --type 'custom' # Search for the new method name to verify its adoption. rg "GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicit" --type-add 'custom:*.go' --type 'custom' # Search for the interface to find its implementations. rg "RevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlyProvider" --type-add 'custom:*.go' --type 'custom'Length of output: 1594
config_default.go (2)
- 62-63: The renaming of
RevokeRefreshTokensExplicitlytoRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitimproves naming consistency within the codebase. However, it's important to ensure that this change is reflected in all relevant documentation and configuration files that might reference the old parameter name. Additionally, consider communicating this change to users or developers who might be affected by this renaming to prevent potential confusion.- 297-298: The getter method
GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitcorrectly reflects the updated configuration parameter name. This consistency is crucial for maintainability and readability of the code. Good job on ensuring that the getter method aligns with the new parameter name.client_authentication.go (17)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting a more flexible and extensible approach to handling client authentication. This aligns well with the SOLID principles, specifically the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing for new authentication strategies to be added without modifying existing code.- 34-43: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) to perform client authentication. This struct adheres to the Dependency Inversion Principle by depending on abstractions (ClientManager,JWKSFetcherStrategyProvider, etc.) rather than concrete implementations, which enhances modularity and testability.- 45-74: The
AuthenticateClientmethod effectively orchestrates the client authentication process by first extracting client credentials from the request and then delegating to the appropriate authentication method based on the credentials provided. This method demonstrates good separation of concerns and readability. However, it's important to ensure that the error messages provided are clear and informative to aid in debugging and user understanding.- 76-122: The
authenticatemethod's switch-case structure for selecting the authentication method based on the presence of different credentials is clear and straightforward. The method also handles the case where multiple authentication methods are detected, which is crucial for security. It's recommended to add comments explaining the rationale behind the design choices, such as why certain authentication methods take precedence over others.- 124-138: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is required (nonemethod). It ensures that the client supports this method before proceeding. This method adheres to the principle of least privilege by not allowing clients that do not explicitly support thenonemethod to use it.- 141-186: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod demonstrates a comprehensive approach to handling client secret authentication, including support for rotated secrets. This is a critical feature for security, allowing clients to rotate secrets without service interruption. It's important to ensure that the secrets comparison is performed in a constant-time manner to prevent timing attacks.- 189-231: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod provides robust handling of client assertion authentication, including detailed error messages for various failure scenarios. This method's implementation is aligned with security best practices, such as validating thejticlaim to prevent replay attacks. It's recommended to ensure that all JWT-related validations are compliant with relevant standards (e.g., RFC 7523).- 234-333: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is well-structured, providing a clear flow for parsing and validating JWT bearer assertions. The use ofxjwt.NewParserwith specific options ensures compliance with RFC 7523 requirements. It's crucial to verify that the JWT signature verification process is secure and uses keys from trusted sources only.- 335-380: The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicfunction correctly extracts and decodes basic authentication credentials from the HTTP authorization header. It's important to ensure that the base64 decoding and URL unescaping are performed securely and handle edge cases properly. Additionally, validating the presence of valid characters in the client ID and secret enhances security.- 383-386: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostfunction is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form parameters. This function adheres to the KISS principle by keeping the implementation simple and focused on its specific task.- 389-392: The
getClientCredentialsClientAssertionfunction efficiently extracts client assertion credentials from form parameters. This function demonstrates good code reuse, as it mirrors the structure ofgetClientCredentialsSecretPost, maintaining consistency in how form parameters are handled.- 395-400: The
getJWTHeaderKIDAlghelper function provides a concise way to extract thekidandalgvalues from a JWT header. This function is crucial for selecting the correct key for JWT signature verification. It's recommended to ensure that the function handles cases where the header values are missing or invalid gracefully.- 402-429: The
FindClientPublicJWKfunction is a key component in the JWT signature verification process, retrieving the public key corresponding to thekidspecified in the JWT. This function demonstrates a thorough approach to resolving keys, including support for fetching keys from a remote JWKS endpoint. It's important to ensure that the key resolution process is secure and resilient to potential issues such as network failures or invalid JWKS data.- 431-498: The
findPublicKeyByKIDfunction is well-implemented, providing a mechanism to select the most appropriate public key from a JWKS based on thekid,alg, anduseparameters. The use of a scoring system (points) to handle cases where exact matches are not found is an interesting approach. It's recommended to document the scoring logic in detail to aid in understanding and future maintenance.- 500-504: The
PrivateKeyinterface definition is a good practice, providing a clear abstraction for handling private keys. This interface ensures that the code can work with different types of private keys in a consistent manner. It's important to ensure that all implementations of this interface adhere to its contract, especially theEqualmethod, which is crucial for security.- 512-531: The
getClientCredentialsClientIDValidfunction effectively validates the client ID obtained from either POST or header credentials, ensuring it adheres to the specification. This function demonstrates good error handling by providing clear hints when the client ID is missing or contains invalid characters. It's important to ensure that the validation logic aligns with the relevant OAuth 2.0 specifications.- 534-590: The methods related to the
Fositestruct (AuthenticateClient,GetDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy,DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy) demonstrate a clear and flexible approach to handling client authentication within the OAuth2 framework. These methods allow for the use of custom authentication strategies, enhancing the extensibility of the framework. It's recommended to ensure that the default strategy is thoroughly tested, as it serves as a fallback when no custom strategy is provided.client_authentication_test.go (3)
- 55-61: In the process of hashing secrets for testing, the context used is
context.TODO(). While this is acceptable for tests, it's important to ensure that in production code, a more appropriate context is used, especially if the hashing operation is expected to be cancellable or has a deadline.Consider verifying if the production code correctly uses contexts with deadlines or cancellation signals where applicable.
- 63-317: The test cases cover a wide range of scenarios for client authentication, which is excellent for ensuring the robustness of the authentication logic. However, there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and maintainability:
Duplication in Test Setup: There's noticeable duplication in setting up the
clientfunction across test cases. Consider refactoring this setup into a helper function to reduce duplication and improve readability.Error Message Verification: The tests rely heavily on string matching for error verification (
tc.err). This approach is fragile because error messages might change, breaking the tests even if the functionality remains correct. It's better to rely on error types or codes for such verifications when possible.Complexity in Test Cases: Some test cases are quite complex, making it hard to quickly understand the test's purpose. Adding comments or breaking down complex test cases into simpler ones could improve readability.
Use of
require.NoErrorandassert.EqualError: The mix ofrequireandassertfunctions is appropriate, but ensure consistency in their usage to maintain readability and understandability of test outcomes.Consider refactoring the test setup to reduce duplication, rely more on error types or codes, simplify complex test cases, and ensure consistent use of
requireandassertfunctions.
- 718-751: The helper functions
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertionare well-implemented for generating JWT assertions with different signing methods. However, there are a couple of points to consider:
Error Handling in Test Helpers: Using
require.NoErrorwithin these functions is appropriate for failing fast in test scenarios. Just ensure that this pattern aligns with the overall testing strategy, where failing a single helper function should indeed fail the entire test case.Naming Consistency: The naming convention of these functions is clear and descriptive. It's good practice to maintain such consistency across all test helper functions to improve readability and maintainability.
The implementation of these helper functions is solid and follows good practices for test helper functions. Just ensure consistency in error handling strategy and naming conventions across all helper functions.
james-d-elliott
commented
Mar 9, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 8
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (21 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Additional comments: 13
client_authentication.go (8)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting a more flexible and extensible approach to handling client authentication. This aligns well with the principles of SOLID design, specifically the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing for new authentication strategies to be added without modifying existing code.- 34-43: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) to perform client authentication. This struct adheres to the Dependency Inversion Principle by depending on abstractions (ClientManager,JWKSFetcherStrategyProvider, etc.) rather than concrete implementations. However, consider documenting the expected behaviors or contracts for these interfaces to improve maintainability and clarity for future developers.- 124-138: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no authentication is required. It's concise and follows best practices by delegating the retrieval of the client to theStoreand checking the client's supported authentication method. This method is a good example of single responsibility and clear logic.- 335-381: The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicmethod is responsible for extracting client credentials from the HTTP authorization header using the Basic scheme. The method is well-structured and follows a clear logical flow. However, consider adding more detailed comments to explain the rationale behind each step, especially the validation checks, to improve readability and maintainability. Additionally, ensure that error messages are as informative as possible to aid in debugging and troubleshooting.- 383-387: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostmethod is concise and effectively retrieves client credentials from form parameters. This method demonstrates good practice by keeping the logic simple and focused. No changes are necessary here.- 389-394: The
getJWTHeaderKIDAlgmethod is a utility function that extracts thekidandalgvalues from a JWT header. It's concise and serves its purpose well. Consider adding a brief comment explaining its role, especially in the context of JWT validation, to improve code readability and documentation.- 494-498: The
PrivateKeyinterface is a good abstraction for handling private keys, allowing for public key extraction and equality checks. This interface is concise and serves its purpose well. No changes are necessary here.- 506-526: The
getClientCredentialsClientIDValidfunction is responsible for validating the client ID obtained from either post or header credentials. The method is concise and follows a clear logical flow. However, consider adding more detailed comments to explain the validation logic, especially the handling of the assertion scenario, to improve readability and maintainability.client_authentication_test.go (5)
- 55-60: The hashing of secrets (
barSecretandcomplexSecret) is done correctly using thehasher.Hashmethod. However, it's important to ensure that the hashing configuration (e.g.,HashCost: 6) is appropriately secure for the application's requirements. Consider evaluating if the chosen hash cost provides an adequate balance between security and performance.- 52-349: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [62-734]
The test cases are comprehensive and cover a wide range of scenarios for client authentication, including both success and failure cases. It's commendable that the tests include detailed checks for specific error messages and types, ensuring that the authentication logic behaves as expected under various conditions. However, consider adding comments to each test case to briefly explain the scenario being tested, especially for more complex cases. This will improve the readability and maintainability of the test suite.
- 704-734: The utility functions for generating JWT assertions (
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertion) are implemented correctly and serve their purpose in the test cases. However, ensure that the use ofjwt.UnsafeAllowNoneSignatureTypeinmustGenerateNoneAssertionis strictly limited to testing scenarios, as allowing unsigned JWTs in production can lead to security vulnerabilities.- 746-754: The custom type
TestClientAuthenticationPolicyClientand its methodGetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethodsare implemented correctly for testing purposes. It's a good practice to have such custom types to test specific behaviors or configurations not covered by the default types. Just ensure that the custom logic aligns with the intended behavior in the actual application context.- 737-744: The
clientBasicAuthHeaderfunction correctly generates an HTTP basic authorization header. It's good practice to useurl.QueryEscapefor the client ID and secret to ensure proper encoding. This function is a useful utility for the test cases that require setting the Authorization header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 3
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
Additional comments: 7
client_authentication.go (7)
- 29-41: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface and theDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is a positive change, promoting a more flexible and extensible approach to handling client authentication. This design aligns well with the principles of SOLID, particularly the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing for the easy addition of new authentication strategies without modifying existing code.- 76-109: The
authenticateandhandleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethods demonstrate a clear and logical structure for handling different authentication scenarios and resolving the used authentication methods. The switch-case structure inauthenticateis concise and easy to follow. However, ensure that the handling of multiple authentication methods inhandleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsaligns with the intended security policies and OAuth 2.0 specifications.- 135-150: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided. It properly checks if the client supports the 'none' authentication method. This method is well-implemented, but ensure that the use of the 'none' method is strictly controlled and only allowed for clients where it makes sense from a security perspective.- 200-243: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod handles client assertion authentication, specifically JWT Bearer assertions. The method is structured to validate the assertion type and parse the JWT. Consider adding more detailed comments explaining the validation steps and the rationale behind each check, especially for those not deeply familiar with JWT and OAuth 2.0 specifications. This would improve the maintainability and understandability of the code.- 309-358: The methods
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKey,doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyClientSecretJWT, anddoAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyPrivateKeyJWTare responsible for finding the appropriate key for JWT validation. These methods are well-structured and follow a logical flow. However, ensure that error messages are clear and informative to aid in debugging and that all edge cases are considered, especially in key selection logic.- 360-406: The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicmethod correctly extracts and decodes client credentials from the HTTP Authorization header. The method follows best practices for handling Basic authentication, including base64 decoding and URL decoding of the client ID and secret. Ensure that the validation of the client ID and secret for special characters (lines 397-403) aligns with the OAuth 2.0 specifications and security best practices.- 581-609: The
AuthenticateClientandDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategymethods in theFositestruct provide a flexible way to handle client authentication using the configured strategy. This design allows for easy extension and customization of the authentication process. Ensure that the fallback to the default strategy is clearly documented and understood by developers using this framework.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 3
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (21 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Additional comments: 15
client_authentication.go (8)
- 29-43: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface and theDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is a positive change, aligning with the principles of SOLID design, specifically the Dependency Inversion Principle. This allows for more flexible and testable code by depending on abstractions rather than concrete implementations. However, it's important to ensure that theStoreandConfiginterfaces withinDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategyare sufficiently documented and their methods are clearly defined elsewhere in the codebase to avoid confusion and maintain clarity.- 76-109: The
authenticateandhandleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethods demonstrate a clear and logical approach to handling different authentication scenarios and resolving the used authentication methods. The switch-case structure inauthenticateis clean and easy to follow. However, ensure that the error messages provided throughout these methods are clear and actionable to aid in debugging and user feedback.- 135-150: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided. It's good practice to validate the client's authentication method against the expected method. However, consider adding more detailed logging or error tracking to help diagnose issues in production environments, especially when authentication fails due to configuration mismatches.- 245-293: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is a good example of breaking down complex logic into more manageable parts. The method's approach to parsing and validating the JWT bearer assertion is sound. However, ensure that error handling is consistent and provides clear, actionable feedback. Additionally, consider adding more detailed comments to explain the rationale behind each check and the significance of the RFC references.- 364-410: The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicmethod correctly handles the extraction of client credentials from the HTTP Authorization header using the Basic authentication scheme. The method's error handling and validation of the decoded credentials are appropriate. However, consider adding more detailed logging for each error case to aid in debugging and troubleshooting.- 412-416: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostmethod is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form parameters. This method is a good example of keeping code simple and focused on a single responsibility. Ensure that the form parameters used (consts.FormParameterClientIDandconsts.FormParameterClientSecret) are consistently named and documented across the codebase.- 425-452: The
FindClientPublicJWKfunction demonstrates a comprehensive approach to finding a public JWK for a client. The method's logic to handle both direct JWK set retrieval and fetching from a URI is sound. However, consider adding more detailed comments to explain the process and the rationale behind each step, especially when resolving keys from a URI. Additionally, ensure that error messages are as informative as possible to aid in debugging and troubleshooting.- 459-521: The
findPublicKeyByKIDfunction demonstrates a comprehensive approach to finding a public key bykid,alg, andusewithin a JWK set. The method's logic is sound, and the use of a scoring system to handle partial matches is innovative. However, the complexity of this method could impact readability and maintainability. Consider adding more detailed comments to explain the scoring system and the rationale behind each check. Additionally, ensure that error messages are as informative as possible to aid in debugging and troubleshooting.client_authentication_test.go (7)
- 791-821: The utility functions for generating JWT assertions (
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion,mustGenerateNoneAssertion) are well-implemented and correctly use therequire.NoErrorto ensure that no errors are ignored during test setup. This approach helps maintain the integrity of the test cases by ensuring that any setup failure leads to an immediate halt of the test.However, it's important to note that the use of
HS256inmustGenerateHSAssertionwith a hardcoded key ("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccccccccddddddddddddddddddddddd") is not ideal for real-world scenarios due to security concerns. While acceptable in a test context, ensure that such practices are not carried over into production code.
- 824-831: The
clientBasicAuthHeaderfunction correctly generates an HTTP basic authorization header, usingurl.QueryEscapeto ensure that theclientIDandclientSecretare correctly encoded. This is a good practice to prevent issues with special characters in the credentials.- 833-841: The
TestClientAuthenticationPolicyClientstruct and its methodGetAllowMultipleAuthenticationMethodsare correctly implemented for testing scenarios with multiple authentication methods. This approach allows for flexible testing of the authentication logic under different configurations.- 55-55: Hashing the secret for the client "bar" using the
hasher.Hashmethod is correctly done within the context of a test setup. It's good practice to userequire.NoErrorto ensure that any error during hashing immediately fails the test, preventing false negatives.- 58-60: The handling of a complex secret with special characters demonstrates the robustness of the hashing function and the authentication logic to handle various input types. Using
require.NoErrorhere as well ensures that the test setup is correctly validated.- 52-349: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [62-689]
The test cases are well-structured and cover a comprehensive range of scenarios for client authentication. Each case is clearly named and includes detailed setup for the client, request, and expected outcomes. This thorough approach ensures that the authentication logic is robustly tested against both expected and edge-case scenarios.
However, it's important to ensure that the test cases are kept up-to-date with any changes in the authentication logic or requirements. Regularly reviewing and updating these test cases will help maintain the security and reliability of the authentication process.
- 691-732: The loop that executes each test case is correctly set up, using
t.Runto execute each case as a subtest. This approach allows for clear identification of which test cases pass or fail. The use ofrequire.EqualErrorandassert.EqualValuesappropriately validates the expected outcomes, ensuring that the authentication logic behaves as intended.One minor suggestion is to consider separating the test cases into smaller groups or functions if the number of scenarios continues to grow. This can help improve readability and maintainability of the test code.
Consider organizing the test cases into smaller, more focused test functions if the number of scenarios becomes significantly large. This can improve the readability and maintainability of the test suite.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 5
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (55)
- access_request_handler_test.go (6 hunks)
- client.go (4 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (23 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- config.go (3 hunks)
- config_default.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (2 hunks)
- generate-mocks.sh (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmacsha_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_test.go (4 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/strategy_hmacsha_test.go (3 hunks)
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/helper_setup_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go (1 hunks)
- internal/client.go (1 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (2 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go (1 hunks)
- pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go (29 hunks)
- request.go (1 hunks)
- revoke_handler_test.go (9 hunks)
- storage/memory.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/client.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/client_secret.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/hash.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/introspector.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/openid_id_token_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/pkce_storage_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/refresh_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/revoke_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/token_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/transactional.go (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (2)
- client_authentication.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (29)
- testing/mock/access_request.go
- testing/mock/access_response.go
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go
- testing/mock/client.go
- testing/mock/client_secret.go
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go
- testing/mock/hash.go
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/introspector.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_strategy.go
- testing/mock/openid_id_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/pkce_storage_strategy.go
- testing/mock/refresh_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/request.go
- testing/mock/revoke_handler.go
- testing/mock/storage.go
- testing/mock/token_handler.go
- testing/mock/transactional.go
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- access_request_handler_test.go
- client_test.go
- config.go
- config_default.go
- fosite.go
- introspection_request_handler.go
Additional comments: 61
client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go (1)
- 14-43: The test cases in
TestComparefunction are well-structured and cover both scenarios where the password matches and does not match the expected hash. It's good practice to include such comprehensive tests for critical security functionality like password comparison. However, consider adding a test case for when an empty string or null value is passed to ensure the function handles these edge cases gracefully.client_authentication_secret.go (1)
- 10-34: The interfaces
HasherandClientSecretare clearly defined and provide a solid foundation for implementing various client secret strategies. It's good to see clear documentation on each method, explaining their purpose and expected behavior. This enhances readability and maintainability of the code. Ensure that all implementations of these interfaces handle errors gracefully and log relevant information for debugging purposes.request.go (1)
- 20-20: The update to exclude the
Clientfield from JSON serialization using the"-"JSON tag is a good security practice, preventing sensitive client information from being exposed in API responses or logs. Ensure that this change does not impact any functionality where theClientinformation was expected in the JSON output. It might be beneficial to verify all places whereRequeststruct is serialized to JSON and confirm that the absence ofClientinformation does not break any integrations or logging requirements.handler/rfc8628/strategy_hmacsha_test.go (1)
- 38-44: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [29-53]
The update to use
oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecretfor initializing theClientSecretfield in test cases is a positive change, ensuring that the tests reflect the actual usage and security practices. It's important to verify that the bcrypt hash provided in the test cases matches the expected plaintext ("foobarfoobarfoobarfoobar") to ensure test accuracy. Additionally, consider adding more test cases to cover different bcrypt cost factors and their impact on the performance and security of the HMAC-SHA strategy.internal/client.go (1)
- 56-81: The changes to the
MockClientmethods, specificallyGetClientSecretandGetGrantTypes, correctly reflect the updated interface definitions. This ensures that the mock client can be used effectively in tests that rely on these methods. It's crucial to ensure that all tests using this mock client are updated accordingly to prevent any test failures due to the changed return types. Additionally, consider adding tests for the mock client itself to verify that it behaves as expected when these methods are called.introspection_request_handler_test.go (1)
- 199-200: Updating the password in the Basic Authorization header to "foobar" in the
TestNewIntrospectionRequestfunction is a straightforward change that should not impact the test's outcome, assuming "foobar" is the correct password for the test scenario. Ensure that this change aligns with the expected credentials for the client being tested and that all related tests are updated to reflect this change if necessary.handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_test.go (4)
- 41-41: The change from
SecrettoClientSecretand the use ofmustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainfor setting the client secret aligns with the PR's objective to enhance security. This approach ensures that client secrets are handled securely and consistently across the system.- 70-70: Similar to the previous comment, the consistent use of
ClientSecretandmustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainhere reinforces the security improvements aimed by the PR. It's good to see uniformity in handling client secrets across different test cases.- 100-100: Again, the use of
ClientSecretandmustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainis observed, which is consistent with the PR's goal of enhancing security. This consistency in handling client secrets is crucial for maintaining a secure authentication process.- 133-133: The application of
ClientSecretandmustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainin this scenario further demonstrates the PR's commitment to security enhancements. Consistent handling of client secrets across various test cases is essential for a robust authentication system.integration/helper_setup_test.go (2)
- 55-55: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretand the use ofNewBCryptClientSecretfor setting the client secret in theDefaultClientstruct is a positive change. It aligns with the PR's objective to enhance security by ensuring that client secrets are securely hashed and managed.- 64-70: The changes in the
DefaultClientWithCustomTokenLifespansstruct, including the replacement ofSecretwithClientSecret, the introduction ofRotatedClientSecrets, and the use ofNewBCryptClientSecret, are commendable. These changes enhance the security and flexibility of handling client secrets, especially in scenarios involving secret rotation and custom token lifespans.revoke_handler_test.go (7)
- 30-39: The initialization of
configandprovideris done without specifying any configuration parameters. While this might be suitable for the current tests, consider if future tests might require specific configurations forFosite. If so, it might be beneficial to add a comment or TODO to remind of potential adjustments needed for more complex scenarios.- 43-47: The error message has been updated to provide more specific information about the malformed request due to the incorrect HTTP method. This is a good practice as it enhances the clarity of error messages, making debugging and error handling more straightforward for developers and users.
- 50-54: Similar to the previous comment, the updated error message here improves clarity by specifying that the POST body cannot be empty. This is a valuable change for the same reasons: it aids in debugging and provides clearer communication of the issue.
- 62-64: The detailed error message for missing client credentials enhances the error's descriptiveness, aiding in quicker identification and resolution of issues related to client authentication.
- 74-75: The error message for failed client authentication is clear and follows standard error messaging practices for OAuth 2.0. This consistency is beneficial for developers familiar with OAuth 2.0 standards.
- 88-89: Including specific error details (
crypto/bcrypt: hashedPassword is not the hash of the given password) in the error message can be helpful for debugging. However, ensure that revealing such information does not pose a security risk, especially in production environments where detailed error messages might aid malicious actors.- 199-199: Asserting the equality of error messages is a good practice for ensuring that the expected error is thrown. This contributes to more robust and predictable error handling in the application.
client.go (6)
- 17-39: The updates to the
Clientinterface, including new method signatures for getting client details such as ID, secret, grant types, response types, scopes, public status, and audience, are comprehensive and align with the objectives of enhancing security and flexibility. Ensure that all implementations of this interface are updated accordingly to prevent any compilation errors.- 42-47: Introducing
RotatedClientSecretsClientto handle rotated secrets is a good practice for security, allowing clients to rotate secrets without service interruption. Ensure that the implementation of this interface properly manages the lifecycle of rotated secrets to prevent any security vulnerabilities.- 49-56: The
ClientAuthenticationPolicyClientinterface, which allows specifying whether multiple authentication methods are allowed, provides flexibility in authentication strategies. This is particularly useful for supporting legacy systems or specific client requirements. Ensure that the default behavior aligns with security best practices, preferably disallowing multiple authentication methods unless explicitly required.- 66-87: The updates to the
OpenIDConnectClientinterface to include methods for handling request URIs, JSON Web Keys, and token endpoint authentication methods enhance the support for OpenID Connect. These changes are crucial for supporting various OpenID Connect features and ensuring compliance with the specification.- 127-135: The
DefaultClientstruct now includes fields for rotated client secrets, which is essential for implementing the functionality described by theRotatedClientSecretsClientinterface. This change is a good practice for supporting secret rotation in a default client implementation. Ensure that the secret rotation logic is securely implemented to avoid exposing old or invalid secrets.- 169-174: The implementation of
GetClientSecretandGetRotatedClientSecretsinDefaultClientaligns with the updated interface definitions. This ensures that the default client can handle secret rotation and multiple authentication methods, enhancing the system's security and flexibility.generate-mocks.sh (1)
- 31-68: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-68]
The updates to the
generate-mocks.shscript to include mock generation for various new interfaces related to OAuth2 handling are comprehensive and necessary for ensuring that unit tests can be written and executed against these interfaces. This is a good practice for maintaining high test coverage and facilitating TDD (Test-Driven Development). Ensure that all newly added interfaces are correctly referenced and that the mock files are correctly placed in the intended directories.integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go (1)
- 64-64: Replacing the
Secretfield withClientSecretand setting its value usingoauth2.NewBCryptClientSecretinstead of a plain byte slice is a significant improvement in handling client secrets securely. This change ensures that secrets are stored in a hashed format, enhancing the security of the system. Ensure that all client secret comparisons are performed using a secure method that mitigates timing attacks.integration/authorize_form_post_test.go (1)
- 142-142: The update from directly assigning a byte slice to using
oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecretfor initializing theClientSecretfield is a positive change for security, ensuring that client secrets are properly hashed.Please ensure that the rest of the system, especially the client secret verification logic, is compatible with bcrypt hashed secrets.
testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go (1)
- 1-382: The generated mock file for the
DeviceAuthorizeRequesterinterface correctly implements all necessary mock methods usinggomock. This is essential for effective unit testing.pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go (21)
- 90-90: The change from
SecrettoClientSecretin theDefaultClientstruct aligns with the PR's objective to enhance security and clarity in client authentication. This modification ensures that the naming convention accurately reflects the purpose of the variable, which is crucial for maintaining code readability and preventing potential confusion.- 104-104: Similar to the previous comment, the consistent use of
ClientSecretacross different test cases demonstrates attention to detail and adherence to the PR's goal of improving authentication logic and code clarity. This change enhances the maintainability of the code by using clear and specific naming conventions.- 118-118: Again, the replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretis observed here, reinforcing the PR's commitment to enhancing security and clarity in the authentication process. Consistency in naming conventions across the codebase is crucial for readability and maintainability.- 133-133: The consistent application of the
ClientSecretnaming convention across various test cases further supports the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 149-149: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 165-165: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretin this test case is consistent with the PR's objectives. This change, along with similar ones in other test cases, contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 185-186: The use of
ClientSecrethere, along with the inclusion ofAudience, demonstrates an effort to refine the authentication logic and improve security. The addition ofAudiencecould be part of enhancing the flexibility and security of the authentication process by allowing for more granular control over access.- 210-210: The consistent use of
ClientSecretacross test cases, as seen here, aligns with the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 248-248: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 286-286: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretin this test case is consistent with the PR's objectives. This change, along with similar ones in other test cases, contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 324-324: The consistent application of the
ClientSecretnaming convention across various test cases further supports the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 362-362: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 395-395: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretin this test case is consistent with the PR's objectives. This change, along with similar ones in other test cases, contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 413-413: The consistent use of
ClientSecretacross test cases, as seen here, aligns with the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 436-436: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 464-464: The consistent application of the
ClientSecretnaming convention across various test cases further supports the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 480-480: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 509-509: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretin this test case is consistent with the PR's objectives. This change, along with similar ones in other test cases, contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 554-554: The consistent use of
ClientSecretacross test cases, as seen here, aligns with the PR's objectives. This change contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.- 594-594: The use of
ClientSecretin this test case, as in the previous ones, aligns with the PR's objectives. It's good to see consistency in the application of naming conventions, which aids in enhancing the clarity and security of the authentication process.- 613-613: The replacement of
SecretwithClientSecretin this test case is consistent with the PR's objectives. This change, along with similar ones in other test cases, contributes to the overall goal of improving security and clarity in the authentication process.client_authentication.go (7)
- 29-42: The introduction of
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface andDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is a positive change, aligning with the principles of SOLID design, specifically the Interface Segregation Principle. This allows for more flexible and testable code by defining a clear contract for client authentication strategies.- 44-72: The
AuthenticateClientmethod inDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct correctly implements the interface method. It handles different authentication methods (basic, post, assertion) and delegates the actual authentication logic to theauthenticatemethod. However, consider adding more detailed comments explaining the logic, especially the decision-making process between different authentication methods, to improve code readability and maintainability.- 75-107: The
authenticatemethod's switch-case structure for handling different authentication methods (assertion, basic, post) is clear and well-organized. However, the method could benefit from more detailed comments explaining each case, especially the rationale behind handling multiple authentication methods and the implications of each. This would enhance the maintainability and understandability of the code.- 134-148: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the case where no authentication method is provided. It checks if the client supports the 'none' method and returns an appropriate error if not. This method is well-implemented, but adding a comment explaining the specific use case it handles (public clients) would enhance clarity.- 254-287: The
CompareClientSecretfunction is well-implemented, providing a secure and clear way to compare client secrets, including support for rotated secrets. This approach enhances security by abstracting the comparison logic and handling different scenarios (e.g., rotated secrets). No changes are needed here.- 290-333: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod correctly handles JWT bearer assertions, including validation of the issuer, subject, and JTI claims. This method is a key part of the authentication logic overhaul and is implemented securely. However, consider adding more detailed comments explaining the JWT validation process and the significance of each claim being validated to improve code readability.- 502-747: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [460-746]
The utility functions
getClientCredentialsSecretBasic,getClientCredentialsSecretPost,getJWTHeaderKIDAlg, andfindPublicKeyare correctly implemented and play crucial roles in parsing and validating client credentials and JWTs. These functions are well-structured and follow best practices for error handling and input validation. No changes are needed here.client_authentication_test.go (4)
- 53-53: The raw secret
complexSecretRawis defined but not used directly in the test cases. Instead, its value is used to create a bcrypt hash which is then used in the tests. Consider adding a comment explaining this usage for clarity.- 50-335: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [55-838]
The test cases in
TestAuthenticateClientcover a wide range of scenarios, including failures due to missing parameters, incorrect client secrets, and successful authentications with various methods. This comprehensive coverage is excellent for ensuring the robustness of the authentication logic. However, there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and maintainability:
Repeated Setup Code: The setup code for creating a
Fositeinstance and a test server is repeated in each test case. Consider refactoring this into a helper function to reduce duplication and improve readability.Magic Strings: There are several instances where error messages and other strings are repeated. Consider defining these as constants or using variables to reduce the chance of typos and make updates easier.
Complex Test Cases: Some test cases have complex setups and assertions. Breaking these down into smaller, more focused tests could improve readability and make it easier to identify the specific functionality being tested.
Error Handling: The use of
require.NoErrorandassert.EqualErroris appropriate, but there are places where the error handling could be more specific. For example, when checking for specific error types, using type assertions or errors.Is/errors.As could provide more precise tests.Test Case Descriptions: Some test case names are very descriptive, which is good. However, ensuring consistency in the level of detail across all test names could help with readability and understanding the purpose of each test at a glance.
Overall, the test coverage is thorough, but these refinements could improve the code quality and maintainability.
- 743-752: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [729-772]
The
TestAuthenticateClientTwicefunction tests the replay attack prevention by attempting to authenticate the same client twice with the same assertion. This is a critical security feature, and the test correctly asserts that the second attempt should fail. However, consider adding more context in the form of comments to explain the importance of this test and how it relates to the overall security of the authentication process.
- 774-804: The utility functions
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertionare well-implemented for generating different types of JWT assertions for testing. However, there's a minor improvement that can be made:
- Error Handling in Utility Functions: Currently, these functions use
require.NoErrorto assert no error occurs during token generation. While this is generally acceptable in test setup code, consider if there's a more graceful way to handle unexpected errors that could provide more context or cleanup resources before failing the test.Additionally, ensure that these utility functions are used consistently across all relevant tests to avoid code duplication.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (9)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (23 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmacsha_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/strategy_hmacsha_test.go (3 hunks)
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/helper_setup_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go (1 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- storage/memory.go (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmacsha_test.go
- handler/rfc8628/strategy_hmacsha_test.go
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go
- integration/helper_setup_test.go
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go
- introspection_request_handler_test.go
Additional comments: 18
client_authentication.go (14)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting flexibility and enabling the implementation of different authentication strategies. This aligns well with the principles of SOLID design, specifically the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing the system to be extended with new authentication strategies without modifying existing code.- 34-42: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) for client authentication. However, it's recommended to document the expected behaviors or capabilities of theStoreandConfiginterfaces, especially since they are defined as generic interfaces here. This documentation will help other developers understand the requirements for implementing these interfaces.- 44-73: The
AuthenticateClientmethod's refactoring to handle various client authentication scenarios is comprehensive. It correctly delegates to specific methods based on the authentication type detected. However, it's crucial to ensure that the error messages provided are clear and helpful for debugging purposes. The error message in line 57, for example, is detailed and provides hints for resolution, which is good practice.- 75-108: The
authenticateandhandleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethods demonstrate a clear separation of concerns, withauthenticatehandling the initial authentication logic andhandleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsdealing with the resolution of multiple authentication methods. This separation enhances readability and maintainability. It's important to ensure that the handling of multiple authentication methods, as described in lines 120-128, aligns with the security policies of the application.- 134-148: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided. It's good to see thorough error handling, including detailed hints for debugging. However, ensure that the method's behavior aligns with the application's security requirements, especially regarding the handling of public clients.- 151-184: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod demonstrates a solid approach to handling client secret authentication. The use of theCompareClientSecretfunction for secret comparison is a good practice, especially considering it accounts for rotated secrets. Ensure that the error handling and messages are consistent and provide enough detail for debugging purposes.- 227-270: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod's handling of client assertions, particularly JWT bearer assertions, is well-implemented. The method's structure, including error handling and validation of JWT claims, is commendable. It's important to ensure that the JWT validation logic, including the checks for issuer and subject claims, aligns with the application's security requirements and the relevant RFCs.- 272-321: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod's implementation is thorough, covering various aspects of JWT parsing and validation. The use ofxjwt.NewParserwith specific validation requirements is a good practice. However, ensure that the error handling in the callback function provided toParseWithClaimsis comprehensive and that all potential error scenarios are accounted for.- 340-361: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeymethod demonstrates a detailed approach to finding the appropriate key for JWT verification. The handling of different authentication methods and the validation of the token endpoint signing algorithm are well-implemented. Ensure that the error messages are clear and provide actionable hints for resolution.- 363-378: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyClientSecretJWTmethod correctly handles the retrieval of the client secret for JWT verification. It's important to ensure that the logic for determining if the secret is in plain text aligns with the application's security policies. Additionally, consider documenting the expected format or characteristics of the client secret for clarity.- 382-393: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyPrivateKeyJWTmethod's handling of private key JWT authentication is well-implemented. The method's approach to finding the public JWK based on the providedkidandalgis solid. Ensure that the error handling is consistent and that the error messages provide enough detail for debugging purposes.- 404-434: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [397-442]
The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicfunction's implementation for parsing basic authentication credentials is comprehensive, including detailed error handling. It's good to see the use ofstrings.Cutfor parsing and the validation of the decoded credentials. Ensure that the error messages are clear and actionable, especially for cases where the credentials are malformed.
- 445-448: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostmethod is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form data. This method's simplicity is appreciated, but ensure that the presence of bothclient_idandclient_secretis validated elsewhere in the authentication flow to enforce security requirements.- 458-485: The
FindClientPublicJWKfunction's implementation for retrieving the public JWK for a client is thorough, including handling both embedded and external JSON Web Key Sets. The error handling and the fallback mechanism for refreshing the key set are well-thought-out. Ensure that the security implications of fetching keys from external sources are considered and mitigated.client_authentication_test.go (4)
- 9-14: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-12]
The file header, package declaration, and import statements are correctly set up, ensuring that all necessary dependencies for the test cases are included. Good practice to include the SPDX-License-Identifier for open-source compliance.
- 53-53: The raw secret for complex scenarios is correctly defined, ensuring that the tests cover cases with special characters in secrets. However, it's marked with
//nolint:gosec, indicating an intentional security exception. This is acceptable in a test context where the value is not a security risk.- 774-834: The utility functions for generating JWT assertions (
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertion) are correctly implemented and play a crucial role in the dynamic generation of test cases. These functions ensure that various JWT signing methods are tested, covering a broad spectrum of authentication scenarios. It's good practice to includerequire.NoError(t, err)to ensure that any errors in token generation lead to immediate test failure, maintaining the integrity of the test suite.However, ensure that these utility functions are flexible and extensible to accommodate future test scenarios that may require additional JWT claims or different signing methods.
- 50-335: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-834]
The overall structure and consistency of the test file are commendable. The naming conventions are clear and descriptive, facilitating easy understanding of each test case's purpose. The use of comments and
nolintdirectives is appropriate, providing necessary context where needed.A few suggestions for improvement:
- Code Comments: Ensure that all utility functions and complex test scenarios are accompanied by comments explaining their purpose and any specific considerations. This will improve maintainability and ease of understanding for future contributors.
- Test Case Documentation: Consider adding a brief comment above each test case or group of similar test cases, summarizing the scenario being tested. This can enhance readability and make it easier to navigate the test suite.
Overall, the test file is well-organized and follows good software engineering practices. Keep up the good work!
Consider enhancing documentation within the test file, including adding comments for utility functions and summarizing comments for complex test scenarios.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 4
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (3)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (5 hunks)
- oauth2.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 12
introspection_request_handler.go (2)
- 96-96: The function signature of
NewIntrospectionRequesthas been updated to no longer return an error. This change assumes that the function can handle all error scenarios internally without needing to propagate errors to the caller. Ensure that all internal error handling is robust and that there are no scenarios where an error might need to be communicated back to the caller.- 136-176: The new function
handleNewIntrospectionRequestClientAuthenticationintroduces internal handling of client authentication. It's crucial to ensure that this function adheres to security best practices, especially regarding token validation and client credentials handling. Verify that the error messages do not leak sensitive information and that all authentication paths are secure against common vulnerabilities such as token replay attacks or credential stuffing.client_authentication.go (10)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting flexibility and extensibility in handling client authentication. It's well-defined and aligns with the objective of enhancing security and reliability.- 34-42: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-structured, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) for client authentication. This design supports the SOLID principles, particularly Dependency Inversion, by depending on abstractions (ClientManagerandJWKSFetcherStrategyProvider) rather than concrete implementations.- 75-108: The
authenticatemethod effectively delegates authentication based on the type of credentials provided. The switch-case structure is clear and easy to follow. However, the method's name could be more descriptive to distinguish it from theAuthenticateClientmethod.Consider renaming
authenticateto something more descriptive, likeperformAuthenticationBasedOnCredentials.
- 110-132: The
handleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethod provides a robust mechanism for handling cases where multiple authentication methods are used. The handling of the policy around multiple authentication methods is particularly noteworthy, allowing for flexibility in policy enforcement.- 134-148: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no authentication method is provided. It ensures that the client supports the 'none' method, which is crucial for security. The error handling and messaging are clear and informative.- 151-184: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod is well-implemented, with thorough error handling and clear logic for determining the authentication method used. However, the method could benefit from a brief comment explaining the rationale behind choosing the basic method as the default when both basic and post are not specified.Consider adding a comment to clarify the default choice of the basic method.
- 227-270: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod demonstrates a comprehensive approach to handling JWT bearer assertions, including detailed error handling and validation of claims. The use of constant-time comparison for security-sensitive comparisons is commendable.- 272-321: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is complex but necessary for parsing and validating JWT bearer assertions. The method's structure is logical, but it could benefit from further comments explaining the purpose of each step, especially for readers unfamiliar with JWT or RFC7523.Consider adding more detailed comments within the method to explain the steps involved in parsing and validating JWT bearer assertions.
- 404-434: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [397-442]
The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicmethod is well-implemented, with clear error handling and validation of the basic authentication scheme. The use ofstrings.Cutand base64 decoding is appropriate. However, the method could benefit from a brief explanation of why certain errors lead to specific error messages, for clarity.Consider adding comments to explain the rationale behind specific error messages in the method.
- 445-448: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostmethod is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form data. Its simplicity and direct approach are appropriate for its purpose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- client.go (4 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go (4 hunks)
Additional comments: 14
handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go (7)
- 35-37: The check for public clients using the client credentials grant is a good security measure, ensuring that only confidential clients can use this grant type.
- 39-41: Validating that the client is authorized to use the client credentials grant type is crucial for enforcing correct grant usage.
- 45-49: The logic to default to all client scopes if no specific scopes are requested and the client allows implicit scopes is a useful feature. However, ensure that this behavior is clearly documented to avoid confusion.
Consider adding documentation or comments explaining this behavior for better clarity.
- 51-51: Validating requested scopes against the client's allowed scopes is essential for security. This ensures that a client cannot request scopes it is not permitted to have.
- 61-63: Setting the token expiration based on the effective lifespan is a good practice. It allows for flexible token lifetimes based on client or grant type specifics.
- 78-80: Issuing an access token with a lifespan specific to the client credentials grant type is consistent with the earlier logic in
HandleTokenEndpointRequest. This maintains consistency in token handling.- 90-93: The implementation of
CanHandleTokenEndpointRequestensures that this handler is only used for requests that explicitly use the client credentials grant type. This is a good practice for maintaining clear separation of concerns and grant type handling.client.go (7)
- 17-39: Updating method signatures in the
Clientinterface to include essential client properties enhances the interface's clarity and usability.- 43-47: Renaming
ClientWithSecretRotationtoRotatedClientSecretsClientand updating its method signature improves the interface's clarity and reflects its purpose more accurately.- 49-56: Introducing the
ClientAuthenticationPolicyClientinterface allows for more granular control over client authentication methods. This is particularly useful for handling edge cases that deviate from the standard OAuth 2.0 specification.- 66-86: The updates to the
OpenIDConnectClientinterface, including new method signatures for handling request URIs, JSON Web Keys, and authentication methods, align with OpenID Connect specifications and enhance the interface's functionality.- 101-102: Adding the
GetRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitmethod to theRevokeFlowRevokeRefreshTokensExplicitClientinterface allows for explicit control over the revocation of refresh tokens, which can be important for certain security policies.- 120-121: Updating the
ResponseModeClientinterface to include a method for getting allowed response modes provides clearer guidance on how clients should handle responses, aligning with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect specifications.- 176-181: The implementation of methods in
DefaultClientfor getting client secrets and rotated client secrets is straightforward and aligns with the updated interfaces. This ensures that default client implementations adhere to the new interface requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (4)
- config.go (4 hunks)
- config_default.go (6 hunks)
- fosite.go (3 hunks)
- response_handler.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- config.go
- config_default.go
- fosite.go
Additional comments: 3
response_handler.go (3)
- 230-230: The renaming of the interface from
AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProvidertoAuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProviderimproves naming clarity and consistency. Ensure that all references to this interface across the project have been updated accordingly.Verification successful
The renaming of the interface from
AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProvidertoAuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProviderhas been successfully implemented and is consistently used across the project, as evidenced by its presence in multiple key files (response_handler.go,fosite.go,config_default.go, andconfig.go). This confirms that the renaming improves naming clarity and consistency without any remaining references to the old interface name.* 227-232: > 📝 **NOTE** > This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [184-184]Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for old interface name to ensure it's no longer used. rg --type go 'AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProvider' # Search for new interface name to validate its usage. rg --type go 'AuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProvider'Length of output: 554
The
EncodeResponseFormmethod correctly handles the encoding of response forms for both standard and JWT-secured authorization response modes. It properly checks client capabilities and encodes parameters accordingly, aligning with best practices for flexible and secure client authentication.
- 227-232: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [184-184]
The
handleWriteAuthorizeErrorJSONmethod effectively sets the appropriate content type, marshals error information to JSON, and writes the error response. The conditional inclusion of debug messages based on configuration is a thoughtful approach to balancing debuggability and security.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go (2 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go (8 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go
Additional comments: 2
handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go (2)
- 23-42: The
IntrospectTokenmethod introduces a comprehensive approach to token introspection, including validation, profile checking, scope matching, and request merging. A few points to consider:
Error Handling and Messaging: The error message in line 30 is clear and informative, which is good practice for debugging and user feedback. However, ensure that this level of detail is appropriate for all environments, as it might inadvertently reveal implementation details.
Scope Matching: The scope matching logic in lines 35-36 is crucial for ensuring that the token has the necessary permissions. It's important to verify that the
GetScopeStrategymethod and thematchScopesfunction are well-tested, especially for edge cases.Request Merging: The merging of the requester into the
accessRequestin line 39 is a critical operation. It would be beneficial to ensure that all fields are correctly merged and that there are no unintended side effects or data overwrites.Overall, the method seems well-structured and aligns with the objectives of enhancing security and flexibility in client authentication. However, thorough testing and validation are recommended to ensure robustness and security.
- 44-61: The
IsJWTProfileAccessTokenfunction correctly implements the RFC9068 specification by checking the 'typ' header for the expected values. This is a key security feature to ensure that only tokens with the correct type are processed. A couple of points to consider:
Header Key and Value Constants: Using constants for header keys and expected values, such as
jwt.JWTHeaderKeyValueTypeandjwt.JWTHeaderTypeValueAccessTokenJWT, is a good practice for maintainability and readability. Ensure these constants are defined in a central location and used consistently throughout the codebase.Type Assertion and Error Handling: The type assertion in line 58 is straightforward, but consider adding error handling or logging for cases where the type assertion fails, to aid in debugging and monitoring.
Overall, the function is concise and aligns with the specified standards. It plays a crucial role in the authentication process by filtering out tokens that do not meet the required profile.
This reworks client authentication preventing situations where authentication will pass when it shouldn't.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-client-auth
branch
from
4a38b58 to
963c25f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 10
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (107)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (2 hunks)
- access_error_test.go (1 hunks)
- access_request_handler_test.go (6 hunks)
- access_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- access_write_test.go (1 hunks)
- authorize_error_test.go (21 hunks)
- authorize_request_handler_test.go (3 hunks)
- authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- authorize_write_test.go (19 hunks)
- client.go (4 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (23 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go (1 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose_openid.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose_rfc8628.go (2 hunks)
- compose/compose_strategy.go (3 hunks)
- config.go (4 hunks)
- config_default.go (6 hunks)
- errors.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (3 hunks)
- generate-mocks.sh (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_code_token_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_implicit_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go (4 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_refresh_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_resource_owner_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/helper_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (30 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt.go (3 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_test.go (4 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_device_authorization_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_auth_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_token_test.go (11 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_hybrid_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/openid/helper_test.go (8 hunks)
- handler/pkce/handler_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc7523/handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/storage.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/strategy.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler.go (3 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler_test.go (15 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler_test.go (8 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/client.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/token_exchange_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/verifiable/handler_test.go (3 hunks)
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/helper_setup_test.go (3 hunks)
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go (1 hunks)
- introspect.go (1 hunks)
- introspect_test.go (2 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (5 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go (9 hunks)
- introspection_response_writer_test.go (2 hunks)
- oauth2.go (1 hunks)
- pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go (30 hunks)
- pushed_authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- request.go (1 hunks)
- response_handler.go (1 hunks)
- revoke_handler_test.go (9 hunks)
- rfc8628_device_authorize_request_handler_test.go (2 hunks)
- rfc8628_device_authorize_response_writer_test.go (2 hunks)
- rfc8628_user_authorize_request_handler_test.go (1 hunks)
- rfc8628_user_authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- storage/memory.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/client.go (2 hunks)
- testing/mock/client_secret.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_handler.go (2 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/hash.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/introspector.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_device_auth_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_strategy.go (4 hunks)
Files not processed due to max files limit (11)
- testing/mock/openid_id_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/pkce_storage.go
- testing/mock/pushed_authorize_handler.go
- testing/mock/refresh_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/refresh_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/request.go
- testing/mock/revoke_handler.go
- testing/mock/rw.go
- testing/mock/storage.go
- testing/mock/token_handler.go
- testing/mock/transactional.go
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files not reviewed due to errors (7)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
- (no review received)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (53)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- access_request_handler_test.go
- client.go
- client_authentication_secret.go
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt.go
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go
- client_test.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go
- config.go
- config_default.go
- errors.go
- fosite.go
- generate-mocks.sh
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go
- handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_test.go
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go
- handler/rfc8693/client.go
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go
- integration/helper_setup_test.go
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go
- introspect.go
- introspection_request_handler.go
- introspection_request_handler_test.go
- oauth2.go
- pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go
- request.go
- testing/mock/access_request.go
- testing/mock/access_response.go
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go
- testing/mock/client.go
- testing/mock/client_secret.go
- testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go
- testing/mock/hash.go
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/introspector.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_strategy.go
Additional comments: 127
handler/rfc8628/strategy.go (3)
- 9-9: The introduction of the
CodeStrategyinterface, which encapsulates bothDeviceCodeStrategyandUserCodeStrategy, is a good design choice. It simplifies the handling of different code strategies under a unified interface, enhancing modularity and maintainability.- 15-17: Prefixing methods within
DeviceCodeStrategywithRFC8628improves clarity and specificity, especially in a context where multiple authentication strategies might be implemented. This naming convention helps in avoiding potential naming conflicts and makes the purpose of these methods more explicit.- 21-23: Similar to the
DeviceCodeStrategy, prefixing methods withinUserCodeStrategywithRFC8628is a good practice for the reasons mentioned earlier. It ensures consistency across the interface definitions and enhances code readability.access_write_test.go (2)
- 16-16: Switching from the
internalpackage to thetesting/mockpackage for mocked entities is a positive change. It likely indicates a move towards a more organized and possibly shared approach to mocking, which can improve test maintainability and reduce duplication across tests.- 23-25: The use of the
mockpackage for creating mock objects (rw,ar,resp) is consistent with the change in import paths. This ensures that the test setup is aligned with the new mocking strategy, potentially offering better isolation and flexibility in test scenarios.compose/compose_strategy.go (2)
- 33-34: Renaming
NewOAuth2HMACStrategyto useHMACCoreStrategyinstead ofHMACSHAStrategyaligns with the changes in the strategy implementation. This renaming likely reflects an internal refactoring or enhancement of the HMAC strategy, potentially offering improved flexibility or security.- 40-40: The update in
NewOAuth2JWTStrategyto useHMACCoreStrategyis consistent with the changes observed inNewOAuth2HMACStrategy. It's important to ensure that all dependent components are updated to use the new strategy to maintain compatibility and leverage any improvements made.pushed_authorize_response_writer_test.go (2)
- 15-15: Updating the import paths to use the
testing/mockpackage for mock definitions is a good practice. It likely indicates a centralized approach to managing mocks, which can enhance test consistency and reduce boilerplate code.- 20-21: The instantiation of mocked objects using the
testing/mockpackage is consistent with the updated import paths. This change ensures that the test setup is aligned with the new approach to mocking, potentially improving test reliability and maintainability.compose/compose_rfc8628.go (3)
- 12-13: Updating the type assertions for
StrategyandStoragefields torfc8628.CodeStrategyandrfc8628.Storagein theRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeFactoryfunction reflects the interface renaming and restructuring. This change ensures that the factory functions are aligned with the updated interface definitions, enhancing type safety and clarity.- 21-22: Similarly, the update in type assertions within the
RFC8628UserAuthorizeFactoryfunction is consistent with the changes observed inRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeFactory. It's crucial to maintain consistency across factory functions to ensure that they correctly utilize the updated interfaces.- 33-34: The changes in type assertions within the
RFC8628DeviceAuthorizeTokenFactoryfunction are aligned with the updates in other factory functions. This consistency across the codebase helps in maintaining a clear and coherent type system, especially when dealing with interfaces that have undergone significant changes.handler/oauth2/strategy.go (3)
- 16-17: The addition of
DeviceCodeStrategyandUserCodeStrategyinterfaces to theCoreStrategyinterface is a significant enhancement. It extends the core strategy to support RFC8628 device and user code handling, aligning with the broader objectives of enhancing client authentication mechanisms.- 38-41: The
DeviceCodeStrategyinterface introduces methods specific to RFC8628 device code handling. This addition is crucial for implementing the device authorization grant flow, providing a structured approach to generating, validating, and managing device codes.- 44-47: Similarly, the
UserCodeStrategyinterface focuses on user code handling as part of the RFC8628 specification. The methods defined in this interface are essential for generating and validating user codes, further enhancing the flexibility and security of the authentication process.handler/oauth2/helper_test.go (2)
- 17-17: Replacing imports from the
internalpackage with those from thetesting/mockpackage is a positive change. It suggests a move towards a more centralized and standardized approach to mocking, which can improve test consistency and reduce code duplication.- 34-35: The update in the instantiation of mocked objects (
accessStrat,accessStore) using themockpackage is consistent with the updated import paths. This change ensures that the test setup is aligned with the new approach to mocking, potentially improving test reliability and maintainability.handler/verifiable/handler_test.go (2)
- 16-16: Switching from the
internalpackage to thetesting/mockpackage for mock definitions is a good practice. It likely indicates a centralized approach to managing mocks, which can enhance test consistency and reduce boilerplate code.- 41-44: The instantiation of mocked objects (
req,resp) using thetesting/mockpackage is consistent with the updated import paths. This change ensures that the test setup is aligned with the new approach to mocking, potentially improving test reliability and maintainability.handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler_test.go (1)
- 22-27: Refactoring the HMAC strategy initialization to use
hoauth2.NewHMACCoreStrategyinstead of a specificNewRFC8628HMACSHAStrategyis a positive change. It likely indicates a consolidation of HMAC strategy implementations, which can simplify the codebase and improve maintainability. Additionally, the use of therequirepackage to handle errors is a best practice in tests, ensuring that the test fails immediately if the setup encounters an error.access_response_writer_test.go (2)
- 16-16: Updating the import path to use the
testing/mockpackage for mock definitions is a good practice. It suggests a move towards a more centralized and standardized approach to mocking, which can improve test consistency and reduce code duplication.- 21-21: The use of the
mockpackage for creating a mockTokenEndpointHandleris consistent with the updated import paths. This ensures that the test setup is aligned with the new approach to mocking, potentially improving test reliability and maintainability.rfc8628_user_authorize_request_handler_test.go (2)
- 15-15: The import path has been updated to use the
testing/mockpackage instead of theinternalpackage. This change aligns with the PR's objective to standardize mock usage across the project.- 20-20: The usage of the
MockRFC8628UserAuthorizeEndpointHandlerhas been updated to reflect the new import path. This change is consistent and correctly updates the mock instantiation to use the new package.rfc8628_device_authorize_response_writer_test.go (2)
- 12-12: The import path has been updated to use the
testing/mockpackage. This change is consistent with the project's goal to standardize the usage of mocks.- 17-18: The instantiation of
MockRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeEndpointHandlerandMockDeviceAuthorizeRequesterhas been updated to reflect the new import path. This change correctly updates the mock instantiation to use thetesting/mockpackage.rfc8628_user_authorize_response_writer_test.go (2)
- 12-12: The import path has been updated to use the
testing/mockpackage. This change is consistent with the project's goal to standardize the usage of mocks.- 17-18: The instantiation of
MockRFC8628UserAuthorizeEndpointHandlerandMockDeviceAuthorizeRequesterhas been updated to reflect the new import path. This change correctly updates the mock instantiation to use thetesting/mockpackage.introspect_test.go (1)
- 48-48: The change from
internal.NewMockTokenIntrospectortomock.NewMockTokenIntrospectoris noted. Ensure that the new mock implementation in themockpackage correctly mirrors the functionality expected by these tests, particularly in terms of the methods available and their behavior.handler/openid/flow_explicit_auth_test.go (1)
- 18-18: The changes in imports and mock object creation from
internaltomockare noted. Ensure that the new mock implementations in themockpackage correctly mirror the functionality expected by these tests, particularly in terms of the methods available and their behavior.Also applies to: 26-27, 51-51
handler/openid/helper_test.go (8)
- 19-19: The change from the
internalpackage to themockpackage for mock objects is noted. This is a good practice as it clearly separates mock implementations from internal business logic, enhancing maintainability and readability of the test code.- 38-38: The use of
mock.NewMockOpenIDConnectTokenStrategy(ctrl)demonstrates a good practice in dependency injection for testing, allowing for more controlled and predictable test outcomes.- 83-83: The mock object
mock.NewMockAccessResponder(ctrl)is correctly instantiated and used within theTestIssueExplicitTokenfunction. This ensures that the test is isolated and does not depend on external systems or complex setups.- 100-100: Similarly, in
TestIssueImplicitToken, the instantiation ofmock.NewMockAuthorizeResponder(ctrl)follows best practices for creating isolated and reliable tests by using mock objects.- 117-118: The creation of mock objects for both the requester and responder in
TestGetAccessTokenHashis a good example of thorough testing practices, ensuring that all components involved in the function under test are controlled and predictable.- 133-134: In
TestGetAccessTokenHashWithDifferentKeyLength, the setup of mock objects and the specific test scenario targeting different key lengths demonstrate attention to detail in testing edge cases, which is crucial for security-related functionality.- 154-155: The test
TestGetAccessTokenHashWithBadAlgcorrectly sets up a scenario to test the behavior of the system when an unsupported algorithm is used. This is important for ensuring robust error handling and security.- 175-176:
TestGetAccessTokenHashWithMissingKeyLengthtests a scenario where the algorithm does not specify a key length. This test ensures that the system can handle such cases gracefully, which is important for maintaining security and functionality.testing/mock/device_handler.go (8)
- 6-6: The command used to generate the mocks is correctly updated to reflect the new package name (
mock). This ensures that future generations of the mock code will be consistent with the current naming convention.- 9-10: The package declaration is correctly updated to
mock, aligning with the new naming convention and improving the organization of the test code.- 20-23: The renaming of the struct to
MockRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeEndpointHandleris appropriate, as it more accurately reflects the specific RFC8628 device authorization functionality it mocks. This change enhances code readability and maintainability.- 26-28: The associated mock recorder's name is also updated to match the new mock struct name, maintaining consistency and clarity in the mock setup.
- 31-34: The function
NewMockRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeEndpointHandleris correctly updated to instantiate the newly named mock struct. This consistency is crucial for ensuring that the mock objects are correctly utilized in tests.- 39-39: The
EXPECTmethod is unchanged, which is expected as it is a standard part of the GoMock framework. It's good to see that the essential parts of the mock framework are used correctly and consistently.- 43-44: The mock method
HandleRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeEndpointRequestis correctly defined, ensuring that it can be used to simulate the behavior of the actual implementation in tests. This is key for creating effective and isolated unit tests.- 51-54: The setup for expected calls to
HandleRFC8628DeviceAuthorizeEndpointRequestusing the mock recorder is correctly implemented, allowing for precise control over mock behavior in tests.handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go (3)
- 19-19: The renaming from
HMACSHAStrategytoHMACCoreStrategyaligns with the PR's objective to enhance security and flexibility. This change should be cross-verified in the implementation and usage across the project to ensure consistency.- 30-30: The introduction of
mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainfor handling BCrypt client secrets is a significant improvement in terms of security. It's crucial to ensure that the bcrypt cost factor used (4in this case) strikes a balance between security and performance. Consider evaluating if this cost factor is appropriate for your use case or if it needs adjustment.Also applies to: 43-43
- 91-98: The test cases for
NewHMACCoreStrategyeffectively cover various scenarios, including custom prefixes and invalid prefix handling. It's good practice to ensure that these tests are comprehensive and cover all edge cases, especially when dealing with token generation and validation.handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_implicit_test.go (2)
- 20-20: The addition of the
authelia.com/provider/oauth2/testing/mockpackage for mock implementations is a good practice for isolating tests and focusing on the behavior of themakeAuthorizeImplicitGrantTypeHandlerfunction. Ensure that the mock implementations are kept up-to-date with the interfaces they mock to prevent discrepancies in behavior during testing.- 120-123: The updates to the
makeAuthorizeImplicitGrantTypeHandlerfunction to use the new mock implementations enhance the test's clarity and maintainability. It's important to verify that all mock expectations are correctly set up to accurately reflect the behavior of the tested components.README.md (2)
- 30-30: The removal of the feature "Basic Scheme Rejects Special Characters" should be clearly communicated in the project's changelog or release notes to inform users of this change. It's also important to ensure that this removal does not introduce any security vulnerabilities or regressions in functionality.
- 88-89: The documentation updates related to the Client Authentication Rework, specifically the general refactor and prevention of multiple client authentication methods, are crucial for enhancing security. Ensure that the implementation details and the rationale behind these changes are well-documented to aid developers in understanding the new authentication mechanism.
testing/mock/oauth2_device_auth_storage.go (2)
- 1-6: This auto-generated mock file for the RFC8628 storage interface is correctly generated using
mockgen. Ensure that the generation command is documented or scripted in the project to facilitate easy regeneration when the source interface changes.- 44-48: The mock methods for the
RFC8628Storageinterface are correctly implemented and match the source interface. It's important to ensure that these mocks are utilized in tests that cover all relevant scenarios for device and user code sessions, including session creation, retrieval, invalidation, and updates.Also applies to: 58-62, 72-76, 87-91, 102-106, 116-120, 130-134, 144-148
response_handler.go (1)
- 230-230: The interface
AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProviderhas been renamed toAuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProvider. This change improves the clarity of the interface's purpose, aligning with the principle of making code more readable and understandable.revoke_handler_test.go (1)
- 16-67: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [20-212]
The modifications in this test file, including the removal of
hasherusage, updates toConfiginitialization, adjustments in client secret handling, and refactoring of tests for error handling, all contribute to improving the clarity and maintainability of the tests. These changes align with best practices for testing by making the tests more focused and easier to understand.handler/oauth2/flow_resource_owner_test.go (1)
- 16-28: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [20-129]
Replacing internal package imports with
testing/mockpackage imports in the test functionsTestResourceOwnerFlow_HandleTokenEndpointRequestandTestResourceOwnerFlow_PopulateTokenEndpointResponseis a good practice. It decouples the tests from the actual implementations, allowing for more focused and isolated testing of the resource owner flow. This change enhances the testability and maintainability of the code by relying on mock objects to simulate various scenarios and behaviors.handler/rfc8693/token_exchange_test.go (1)
- 73-73: Updating the
coreStrategyvariable from&hoauth2.HMACSHAStrategyto&hoauth2.HMACCoreStrategyin theTestAccessTokenExchangeImpersonationfunction aligns with the changes in the core strategy implementation. This update ensures that the test uses the correct strategy implementation, which is crucial for accurately testing the access token exchange impersonation functionality.handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac.go (13)
- 15-34: The
NewHMACCoreStrategyfunction correctly handles the creation of a newHMACCoreStrategyinstance, including validation for theprefixparameter. However, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose and expected format of theprefixparameter for clarity, as it plays a crucial role in token formatting.- 37-47: The
HMACCoreStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components for HMAC-based token strategy. It's good to see the use of interfaces for configuration, promoting flexibility and testability. No issues here.- 49-52: The
AccessTokenSignaturemethod is concise and delegates the signature generation to theEnigmacomponent. This is a clean separation of concerns. Ensure that theEnigma.Signaturemethod is thoroughly tested, especially for edge cases.- 63-74: The
ValidateAccessTokenmethod's logic for checking token expiration is sound. However, the repeated calls totime.Now().UTC()could be optimized by storing the result in a variable at the start of the method to ensure consistency throughout the method's execution and slightly improve performance.- 77-80: The
RefreshTokenSignaturemethod follows the same pattern asAccessTokenSignature, which is consistent and clear. Ensure that the underlyingEnigma.Signaturemethod handles all token types uniformly.- 91-103: The
ValidateRefreshTokenmethod's approach to token validation, including expiration check, is consistent with the access token validation. The optimization suggestion fortime.Now().UTC()applies here as well.- 106-108: The
AuthorizeCodeSignaturemethod is consistent with the other signature methods. This consistency in the implementation of strategy methods is good for maintainability.- 120-132: The
ValidateAuthorizeCodemethod correctly implements the validation logic, including expiration checks. The optimization fortime.Now().UTC()is recommended here as well.- 135-137: The
RFC8628UserCodeSignaturemethod introduces a specific signature generation for user codes. Ensure that theEnigma.GenerateHMACForStringmethod is optimized for performance and security, given its critical role in the authentication process.- 139-153: The
GenerateRFC8628UserCodemethod introduces randomness throughrandx.RuneSequence, which is crucial for security. Ensure that therandx.RuneSequencefunction uses a cryptographically secure random generator and that error handling is robust.- 156-167: The
ValidateRFC8628UserCodemethod's logic for expiration checks is consistent with other token validation methods. The same optimization fortime.Now().UTC()is recommended.- 170-171: The
RFC8628DeviceCodeSignaturemethod is straightforward and consistent with other signature methods. Ensure comprehensive testing of theEnigma.Signaturemethod for all token types.- 183-194: The
ValidateRFC8628DeviceCodemethod implements consistent validation logic, including expiration checks. The optimization fortime.Now().UTC()is recommended here as well.handler/openid/flow_explicit_token_test.go (2)
- 20-20: The change from
internal.MockOpenIDConnectRequestStoragetomock.MockOpenIDConnectRequestStoragesuggests a reorganization of the mock storage implementation. Ensure that all references to the old mock storage are updated across the entire test suite to maintain consistency and avoid confusion.- 33-52: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [36-203]
The test cases in this file have been updated to use the new
mock.MockOpenIDConnectRequestStoragefor setting up the test environment. This is a good practice as it keeps the test code clean and focused on the behavior being tested. However, ensure that the mock implementations are correctly mirroring the behavior of the actual storage implementations to avoid false positives or negatives in the tests.handler/openid/flow_device_authorization_test.go (3)
- 17-17: The change to use mock implementations from the
testing/mockpackage foroidcStoreandtokenHandleris a good practice. It decouples the test cases from the actual implementations, allowing for more focused and reliable testing.- 39-40: Using mock objects for
oidcStoreandtokenHandlerwithin the test setup is correctly implemented. This ensures that the tests are isolated and not dependent on the actual storage or token handling logic, which is crucial for unit testing.- 140-141: The repetition of mocking
oidcStoreandtokenHandlerin another test function maintains consistency in the approach to mocking dependencies. This consistency is beneficial for readability and maintainability of the test suite.authorize_write_test.go (4)
- 17-17: The update to imports, specifically the inclusion of the
testing/mockpackage, aligns with the objective to utilize mock implementations for testing. This change supports the isolation of tests from actual implementations.- 23-24: Adjusting the function signatures to use the updated mock package names ensures that the tests are correctly utilizing the mock objects. This is a necessary change following the update to imports and contributes to the maintainability of the test suite.
- 13-31: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [28-38]
The setup function for the test case "ShouldWriteResponseModeDefault" correctly configures mock expectations and interactions. This detailed setup is crucial for accurately testing the behavior of
WriteAuthorizeResponseunder different conditions.
- 215-217: Creating new mock objects for
ResponseWriter,AuthorizeRequester, andAuthorizeResponderwithin each test case ensures that each test is isolated and not affected by the state of mock objects in other tests. This is a good practice for reliable unit testing.handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler_test.go (6)
- 15-15: The import of the
hoauth2package indicates a restructuring or renaming within the project's packages. This change likely reflects an effort to better organize OAuth2-related handlers and strategies, which is beneficial for code organization and readability.- 23-24: Renaming
RFC8628StorageandRFC8628CodeStrategytoStorageandCodeStrategyrespectively simplifies the naming and makes it more consistent with Go naming conventions. This change improves readability and maintainability.- 41-41: The renaming of
GenerateUserCodetoGenerateRFC8628UserCodeclarifies the specific purpose of the function, which is to generate user codes for RFC8628. This naming improvement aids in understanding the code's intent.- 56-61: The initialization of the
strategyusinghoauth2.NewHMACCoreStrategydemonstrates a clear and structured approach to setting up the strategy for testing. This setup is crucial for ensuring that the tests accurately reflect the intended behavior of the strategy under various conditions.- 214-215: The repetition of the renaming and restructuring changes in another test function maintains consistency across the test suite. Consistent naming and structuring are important for the overall readability and maintainability of the code.
- 259-264: Repeating the strategy initialization in another test function ensures that each test is self-contained and has all necessary setup within its scope. This approach is beneficial for test isolation and reliability.
handler/pkce/handler_test.go (1)
- 43-43: The change from
HMACSHAStrategytoHMACCoreStrategyin theAuthorizeCodeStrategyassignment is noted. This update likely reflects a shift towards a more generalized or improved HMAC strategy for generating and validating authorization codes. Ensure that this new strategy aligns with the security requirements for PKCE in OAuth2 and that it is compatible with the rest of the authentication flow. It's also important to verify that all relevant tests have been updated to reflect this change and that they pass successfully.handler/openid/flow_hybrid_test.go (1)
- 410-410: The change from
HMACSHAStrategytoHMACCoreStrategyin the declaration ofhmacStrategyis a significant update that aligns with the PR's goal of enhancing the security and flexibility of client authentication. This change likely introduces improvements in how HMAC strategies are utilized within the authentication process. It's crucial to ensure that this new strategy is thoroughly tested, especially in scenarios that were previously covered by theHMACSHAStrategy.However, it would be beneficial to verify that all relevant test cases have been updated or added to cover the new functionality and security aspects introduced by
HMACCoreStrategy. This ensures that the authentication mechanism remains robust and secure.handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_code_token_test.go (2)
- 21-21: The change to import mock packages for testing purposes is a good practice. It helps in isolating the unit under test and provides better control over the test environment. This change aligns with the objective of enhancing the security and flexibility of client authentication by ensuring that the tests are robust and reliable.
- 444-446: The declaration of
mockTransactionalandmockCoreStoreusing the mock package types instead of internal package types is a significant improvement. This approach allows for more controlled and isolated testing of the OAuth2 authorization code flow. It's crucial to ensure that these mocks are correctly set up to mimic the behavior of their real counterparts accurately.authorize_request_handler_test.go (2)
- 20-20: The import of
authelia.com/provider/oauth2/internalhas been replaced withauthelia.com/provider/oauth2/testing/mock. This change aligns with the PR's objective to enhance testing and mock generation capabilities. It's crucial to ensure that all references and usages within the test file are updated accordingly to prevent any broken dependencies.- 30-30: The declaration of
storehas been updated from*MockStorageto*mock.MockStorage. This change is consistent with the new import path and indicates a shift towards using a more standardized mock storage structure. It's important to verify that all method calls onstoreare compatible with theMockStorageinterface provided by themockpackage to ensure the test's integrity.handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler_test.go (4)
- 24-24: The renaming of
HMACSHAStrategytoHMACCoreStrategyreflects a broader applicability of the strategy beyond just HMAC-SHA algorithms. This change is positive as it aligns with the principle of making names more generic when the functionality is not specific to a particular algorithm.- 70-70: The replacement of
GenerateDeviceCodewithGenerateRFC8628DeviceCodeandGenerateUserCodewithGenerateRFC8628UserCodein various functions is a good practice. It makes the method names more descriptive and specific to RFC8628, which improves code readability and maintainability.Also applies to: 92-94, 132-134, 172-174, 210-212, 338-338, 375-377, 410-412, 447-449, 513-513
- 486-490: Initializing mock variables (
mockTransactional,mockCoreStore,mockDeviceStore) without using them in a setup function before the test cases start could lead to confusion. It's generally a good practice to initialize such mocks within the scope where they are used, or at least closer to their point of use, to improve test readability and maintainability.Consider moving the initialization of these mocks into the setup function of each test case or immediately before the test cases where they are used.
- 754-756: Mock variables are re-initialized here, which seems redundant given their initial declaration earlier in the file. This redundancy could be eliminated to improve code clarity and avoid potential confusion about the scope and lifecycle of these mock objects.
Consider removing the redundant re-initialization of
mockTransactional,mockCoreStore, andmockDeviceStoreif they are intended to be used throughout the test file. Ensure their lifecycle is managed appropriately across different test cases.client_authentication.go (19)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting modularity and flexibility in implementing different authentication strategies. This aligns well with the SOLID principles, specifically the Open/Closed Principle, by allowing the system to be extended with new authentication strategies without modifying existing code.- 34-42: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) to perform client authentication. This struct's design supports the Dependency Inversion Principle by depending on abstractions (ClientManagerandJWKSFetcherStrategyProvider) rather than concrete implementations, which enhances modularity and testability.- 75-108: The
authenticatemethod's switch-case structure for handling different authentication scenarios (assertion, basic, post, none) is clear and straightforward. The method's design adheres to the Single Responsibility Principle by delegating the actual authentication logic to specialized methods (doAuthenticateAssertion,doAuthenticateClientSecret,doAuthenticateNone). This approach enhances readability and maintainability.- 110-132: The
handleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethod effectively handles the case where multiple authentication methods are detected. It adheres to the security best practice of not allowing multiple authentication methods by default, which can prevent potential security vulnerabilities. The method's implementation is logical and aligns with the OAuth 2.0 specification's recommendations.- 134-148: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided. It ensures that the client supports the 'none' authentication method, which is crucial for public clients in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect scenarios. The error handling and adherence to security best practices are commendable.- 151-184: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod demonstrates good error handling and security practices by validating the client's authentication method and comparing the provided secret against the registered client secret. However, consider adding comments to explain the significance of theCompareClientSecretfunction and its error handling, especially for theErrClientSecretNotRegisteredcase, to improve code readability and maintainability.- 191-219: The
CompareClientSecretfunction is well-implemented, with clear handling of different cases, including rotated secrets. This function's design supports security best practices by allowing for secret rotation without impacting ongoing authentication processes. Including comments to explain the rationale behind handling rotated secrets would enhance understanding for future maintainers.- 227-270: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod handles client assertion authentication, specifically JWT Bearer assertions. The method's structure and error handling are well-designed, ensuring that the assertion meets the necessary criteria (e.g., issuer and subject match the client ID). However, consider adding more detailed comments explaining the JWT validation process and the significance of each validation step to improve code readability and maintainability.- 272-321: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is responsible for parsing and validating JWT Bearer assertions. The method correctly implements RFC7523 requirements, such as audience and expiration checks. The use of a parser with strict decoding options enhances security by ensuring strict adherence to the expected token format. Including comments to explain the RFC7523 requirements being satisfied would be beneficial for maintainability.- 323-338: The error handling in
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerParseErroris comprehensive, covering various JWT parsing and validation errors. This method enhances the security of the authentication process by providing detailed feedback on the nature of the error encountered. The method's implementation aligns with best practices for error handling in security-sensitive operations.- 340-361: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeymethod demonstrates a thorough approach to finding the appropriate public key for JWT verification. The method's handling of different client authentication methods and token endpoint signing algorithms is well-implemented. However, consider adding comments to explain the decision-making process for selecting the appropriate key, which would aid in understanding and maintaining the code.- 363-378: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyClientSecretJWTmethod correctly handles the case where the client uses a client secret JWT for authentication. The method's implementation is straightforward and adheres to security best practices by ensuring that the secret is plain text before using it for verification. Including comments to explain the significance of the algorithm checks would enhance code readability.- 382-393: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyPrivateKeyJWTmethod effectively handles the retrieval of public keys for private key JWT authentication. The method's implementation is logical and aligns with security best practices by ensuring that the key matches the expected algorithm. Including comments to explain the process of finding the public key based on the providedkidandalgwould improve maintainability.- 404-434: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [397-442]
The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicfunction correctly parses the basic authentication header to extract client credentials. The function's error handling and adherence to the OAuth 2.0 specification are commendable. However, consider adding comments to explain the parsing process and the significance of each validation step (e.g., base64 decoding, URL unescaping) to enhance code readability.
- 445-449: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostfunction is straightforward and effectively retrieves client credentials from form parameters. The function's implementation is concise and aligns with the OAuth 2.0 specification for client authentication using the POST method. This function's simplicity and adherence to the specification are positive aspects.- 451-456: The
getJWTHeaderKIDAlgfunction effectively extracts thekidandalgvalues from a JWT header. The function's implementation is straightforward and serves its purpose well. Including comments to explain the significance of these values in the context of JWT validation would enhance understanding for future maintainers.- 492-554: The
findPublicKeyByKIDfunction demonstrates a comprehensive approach to finding a public key within a JWK set based onkid,alg, anduse. The function's implementation of a scoring system for partial matches is innovative, enhancing flexibility in key selection. However, consider adding comments to explain the scoring system and its rationale to improve code readability and maintainability.- 562-565: The
getClientCredentialsClientAssertionfunction is correctly implemented to extract client assertion credentials from form parameters. The function's simplicity and adherence to the OAuth 2.0 assertion framework are positive aspects. This function's implementation aligns with the previously noted comments, indicating that the issue with duplicate definitions has been resolved.- 568-588: The
getClientCredentialsClientIDValidfunction effectively validates the client ID obtained from either POST or header credentials, ensuring it adheres to the specification's character requirements. The function's error handling and validation logic are well-implemented. Including comments to explain the validation criteria would enhance code readability.authorize_error_test.go (3)
- 17-17: The update in imports and the change in references to
MockResponseWriterandMockAuthorizeRequesterto use themockpackage prefix indicate a restructuring or reorganization of the mock objects within the project. This is a good practice for maintaining clarity and organization, especially in larger projects where mocks might be used across different packages or modules.- 50-50: The introduction of setup functions for test cases using the updated mock references (
mock.MockResponseWriterandmock.MockAuthorizeRequester) is consistent and aligns with the changes in the import statements. This consistency is crucial for maintainability and readability of the test code.- 70-76: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [56-436]
The test cases are well-structured and cover a variety of scenarios related to authorization error handling, including different response modes and debug settings. The use of
gomockfor setting up mock expectations andassertfor validating the outcomes is appropriate and consistent. Each test case clearly defines its setup, making it easy to understand the scenario being tested and the expected behavior. This thorough testing approach is commendable for ensuring the robustness of the error handling logic.handler/rfc7523/handler_test.go (3)
- 35-43: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [27-40]
The replacement of internal package references with mock package references for
RFC7523KeyStorage,AccessTokenStrategy, andAccessTokenStorageis a positive change for testing purposes. It allows for more controlled and isolated testing environments by using mock objects instead of real implementations. This approach facilitates the testing of specific behaviors and error conditions without relying on external systems or complex setup.
- 66-68: Using mock objects in the
SetupTestmethod for each test ensures that each test case starts with a clean state. This is crucial for avoiding side effects between tests and makes the tests more reliable and easier to understand. It's good practice to initialize these mocks before each test to ensure test isolation.- 810-818: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [813-844]
The changes in the
AuthorizeJWTGrantPopulateTokenEndpointTestSuitefollow the same pattern as the first suite, replacing internal package references with mock package references. This consistency across test suites is good for maintainability and readability of the test code. It's also worth noting that the use of a larger key size (2048 bits) in theSetupSuitemethod of the second test suite is a better practice for security reasons compared to the 512 bits used in the first suite. However, for test purposes, the key size might be reduced for performance reasons, but it's important to ensure that production code uses adequately sized keys.Consider aligning the RSA key sizes used in test setups across different suites for consistency, unless there's a specific reason for the discrepancy. For real-world applications, always use keys of adequate size to ensure security.
handler/oauth2/flow_refresh_test.go (4)
- 438-439: The introduction of
mock.MockTransactionalandmock.MockTokenRevocationStoragefrom theauthelia.com/provider/oauth2/testing/mockpackage is a positive change, as it likely enhances the specificity and control of mock behavior in tests. This aligns with best practices for unit testing by allowing more precise simulation of external dependencies.- 499-500: Creating instances of
mock.MockTransactionalandmock.MockTokenRevocationStoragewithin the test case setup is a good practice. It ensures that each test case gets fresh mock instances, preventing state leakage between tests and making the tests more reliable and easier to understand.- 612-615: The declaration of
mock.MockTransactionalandmock.MockTokenRevocationStorageat the beginning of theTestRefreshFlowTransactional_PopulateTokenEndpointResponsefunction is consistent with the approach taken in the previous test function. This consistency in test setup improves the readability and maintainability of the test suite.- 1153-1154: Instantiating
mock.MockTransactionalandmock.MockTokenRevocationStoragefor each test case inTestRefreshFlowTransactional_PopulateTokenEndpointResponsefollows the same best practices as mentioned earlier. It ensures test isolation and enhances the clarity of the test logic.client_authentication_test.go (1)
- 53-53: The use of a complex secret with special characters is good for testing robustness. However, the
nolint:gosecdirective is used to bypass security linting. Ensure that this is justified and documented, especially since this is test code and the security implications are minimal but should still be acknowledged.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-client-auth
branch
from
d72739f to
4ba0274
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 6
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (107)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (2 hunks)
- access_error_test.go (1 hunks)
- access_request_handler_test.go (6 hunks)
- access_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- access_write_test.go (1 hunks)
- authorize_error_test.go (21 hunks)
- authorize_request_handler_test.go (3 hunks)
- authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- authorize_write_test.go (19 hunks)
- client.go (4 hunks)
- client_authentication.go (3 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go (1 hunks)
- client_authentication_test.go (23 hunks)
- client_test.go (2 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go (1 hunks)
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose_openid.go (1 hunks)
- compose/compose_rfc8628.go (2 hunks)
- compose/compose_strategy.go (3 hunks)
- config.go (4 hunks)
- config_default.go (6 hunks)
- errors.go (5 hunks)
- fosite.go (3 hunks)
- generate-mocks.sh (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_code_token_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_implicit_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go (4 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_refresh_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/flow_resource_owner_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/helper_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/introspector_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go (30 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy.go (2 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go (4 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_profile.go (1 hunks)
- handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_profile_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_device_authorization_test.go (3 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_auth_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_token_test.go (11 hunks)
- handler/openid/flow_hybrid_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/openid/helper_test.go (8 hunks)
- handler/pkce/handler_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc7523/handler_test.go (5 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler_test.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/storage.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/strategy.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler.go (3 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler_test.go (15 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler.go (2 hunks)
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler_test.go (8 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/client.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go (1 hunks)
- handler/rfc8693/token_exchange_test.go (1 hunks)
- handler/verifiable/handler_test.go (3 hunks)
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go (2 hunks)
- integration/helper_setup_test.go (4 hunks)
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go (1 hunks)
- introspect.go (1 hunks)
- introspect_test.go (2 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler.go (5 hunks)
- introspection_request_handler_test.go (9 hunks)
- introspection_response_writer_test.go (2 hunks)
- oauth2.go (1 hunks)
- pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go (30 hunks)
- pushed_authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- request.go (1 hunks)
- response_handler.go (1 hunks)
- revoke_handler_test.go (9 hunks)
- rfc8628_device_authorize_request_handler_test.go (2 hunks)
- rfc8628_device_authorize_response_writer_test.go (2 hunks)
- rfc8628_user_authorize_request_handler_test.go (1 hunks)
- rfc8628_user_authorize_response_writer_test.go (1 hunks)
- storage/memory.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/client.go (2 hunks)
- testing/mock/client_secret.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_handler.go (2 hunks)
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/hash.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/introspector.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_device_auth_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go (1 hunks)
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go (1 hunks)
Files not processed due to max files limit (13)
- testing/mock/oauth2_strategy.go
- testing/mock/openid_id_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/pkce_storage.go
- testing/mock/pushed_authorize_handler.go
- testing/mock/refresh_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/refresh_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/request.go
- testing/mock/revoke_handler.go
- testing/mock/rw.go
- testing/mock/storage.go
- testing/mock/token_handler.go
- testing/mock/transactional.go
- token/hmac/hmacsha.go
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- client_authentication_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (97)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- access_error_test.go
- access_request_handler_test.go
- access_response_writer_test.go
- access_write_test.go
- authorize_error_test.go
- authorize_request_handler_test.go
- authorize_response_writer_test.go
- authorize_write_test.go
- client.go
- client_authentication_secret.go
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt.go
- client_authentication_secret_bcrypt_test.go
- client_test.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans.go
- client_with_custom_token_lifespans_test.go
- compose/compose.go
- compose/compose_openid.go
- compose/compose_rfc8628.go
- compose/compose_strategy.go
- config.go
- config_default.go
- errors.go
- fosite.go
- generate-mocks.sh
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_code_token_test.go
- handler/oauth2/flow_authorize_implicit_test.go
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials.go
- handler/oauth2/flow_client_credentials_test.go
- handler/oauth2/flow_refresh_test.go
- handler/oauth2/flow_resource_owner_test.go
- handler/oauth2/helper_test.go
- handler/oauth2/introspector_test.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation.go
- handler/oauth2/revocation_test.go
- handler/oauth2/strategy.go
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac.go
- handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go
- handler/openid/flow_device_authorization_test.go
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_auth_test.go
- handler/openid/flow_explicit_token_test.go
- handler/openid/flow_hybrid_test.go
- handler/openid/helper_test.go
- handler/pkce/handler_test.go
- handler/rfc7523/handler_test.go
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler.go
- handler/rfc8628/device_authorize_handler_test.go
- handler/rfc8628/storage.go
- handler/rfc8628/strategy.go
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler.go
- handler/rfc8628/token_endpoint_handler_test.go
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler.go
- handler/rfc8628/user_authorize_handler_test.go
- handler/rfc8693/access_token_type_handler.go
- handler/rfc8693/client.go
- handler/rfc8693/refresh_token_type_handler.go
- handler/rfc8693/token_exchange_test.go
- handler/verifiable/handler_test.go
- integration/authorize_form_post_test.go
- integration/helper_setup_test.go
- integration/refresh_token_grant_test.go
- introspect.go
- introspect_test.go
- introspection_request_handler.go
- introspection_request_handler_test.go
- introspection_response_writer_test.go
- oauth2.go
- pushed_authorize_request_handler_test.go
- pushed_authorize_response_writer_test.go
- request.go
- rfc8628_device_authorize_request_handler_test.go
- rfc8628_device_authorize_response_writer_test.go
- rfc8628_user_authorize_request_handler_test.go
- rfc8628_user_authorize_response_writer_test.go
- testing/mock/access_request.go
- testing/mock/access_response.go
- testing/mock/access_token_storage.go
- testing/mock/access_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_storage.go
- testing/mock/authorize_code_strategy.go
- testing/mock/authorize_handler.go
- testing/mock/authorize_request.go
- testing/mock/authorize_response.go
- testing/mock/client.go
- testing/mock/client_secret.go
- testing/mock/device_authorization_request.go
- testing/mock/device_handler.go
- testing/mock/device_oauth2_handler.go
- testing/mock/hash.go
- testing/mock/id_token_strategy.go
- testing/mock/introspector.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_auth_jwt_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_client_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_device_auth_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_owner_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_revoke_storage.go
- testing/mock/oauth2_storage.go
Additional comments: 37
handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt.go (2)
- 23-41: The
IntrospectTokenmethod correctly implements JWT token validation, scope matching, and access request merging. However, consider adding more detailed error messages for different failure scenarios to improve debuggability.- 44-60: The
IsJWTProfileAccessTokenfunction effectively checks for thetypheader value according to RFC9068. This is a good practice for ensuring that only tokens of the correct type are processed.handler/oauth2/introspector_jwt_test.go (1)
- 23-23: Switching to
JWTProfileCoreStrategyin tests is aligned with the changes in the authentication strategy. Ensure that all relevant test cases are updated to reflect this change and that the new strategy is thoroughly tested.handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_profile.go (2)
- 18-26: The
JWTProfileCoreStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating both JWT signing capabilities and HMAC strategy for refresh and authorization codes. This modular approach enhances maintainability and flexibility.- 98-110: The
validatefunction correctly decodes and validates JWT tokens, including detailed error handling. Consider adding comments to explain the rationale behind converting JWT validation errors to RFC6749 errors for clarity.handler/oauth2/strategy_jwt_profile_test.go (2)
- 26-26: Switching to
JWTProfileCoreStrategyin test setup is consistent with the changes in the authentication strategy. This ensures that the new strategy is adequately covered by tests.- 41-41: Using bcrypt for hashing client secrets is a significant security improvement. Ensure that the
mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainfunction correctly handles bcrypt hashing and that its usage is consistent across all test cases.Verification successful
To further verify the implementation of the
mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainfunction and ensure its consistent usage across test cases, we need to examine the function's implementation in bothclient_authentication_test.goandhandler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go. Let's proceed with viewing the content of these function definitions.
The implementation of
mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlainand its usage across test cases have been verified. The function is consistently used for hashing client secrets with bcrypt in various test scenarios, aligning with the security improvement mentioned.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the implementation of mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlain function rg "mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlain"Length of output: 1393
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Examine the implementation of mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlain in client_authentication_test.go cat client_authentication_test.go # Examine the implementation of mustNewBCryptClientSecretPlain in handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.go cat handler/oauth2/strategy_hmac_test.goLength of output: 56602
README.md (2)
- 31-31: The removal of the feature that rejected special characters in the Basic Scheme is documented. Ensure that this change is clearly communicated to users, possibly with a rationale, to avoid confusion.
- 89-93: The documentation of the Client Authentication Rework is comprehensive, covering general refactoring, prevention of multiple authentication methods, and the introduction of a client secret validation interface. Consider adding examples or more detailed explanations for these features to help users understand their impact and usage.
response_handler.go (1)
- 230-230: The interface
AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProviderhas been renamed toAuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProvider. This change improves the readability and clarity of the interface's purpose, which is likely to provide identification information for the authorization server issuer. It's a good practice to name interfaces and methods in a way that clearly describes their functionality.revoke_handler_test.go (3)
- 20-26: Initialization of mock storage and handler objects is done correctly. Using
gomock.NewControllerand deferringctrl.Finish()ensures that all expected interactions are asserted at the end of the test, which is a good practice for maintaining test integrity.- 92-92: The handling of client secrets using bcrypt is correctly demonstrated in the mock setup. However, ensure that in real scenarios, secrets are securely managed and not hardcoded in the tests or the application code. Consider using environment variables or a secure secrets management solution for storing sensitive information like client secrets.
- 199-199: The use of
assert.EqualErrorfor checking specific error messages is appropriate. It ensures that the error handling logic in the revocation process behaves as expected under various conditions. This contributes to the robustness of the error handling mechanism.client_authentication.go (23)
- 29-32: The introduction of the
ClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface is a positive change, promoting flexibility and enabling the implementation of different authentication strategies. This aligns well with the principles of open/closed SOLID principles, allowing for future extensions without modifying existing code.- 34-42: The
DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategystruct is well-defined, encapsulating the necessary components (StoreandConfig) to perform client authentication. This struct serves as a concrete implementation of theClientAuthenticationStrategyinterface, demonstrating a clear application of the interface segregation principle from SOLID principles.- 75-108: The
authenticatemethod effectively handles different authentication scenarios (assertion, client secret basic/post, none) and aggregates the methods used for authentication. This method demonstrates good separation of concerns and encapsulation of the authentication logic. However, ensure that the error handling is consistent and provides enough context for debugging purposes.- 110-131: The
handleResolvedClientAuthenticationMethodsmethod addresses the scenario where multiple authentication methods are used in a single request. This method's implementation aligns with the RFC6749 guidelines, which prohibit using more than one authentication method. The handling of clients that allow multiple authentication methods via theClientAuthenticationPolicyClientinterface is a thoughtful addition.- 134-148: The
doAuthenticateNonemethod correctly handles the scenario where no client authentication is provided. It ensures that the client supports the 'none' method before proceeding. This method's implementation is straightforward and adheres to the principle of least privilege by not allowing unauthenticated access unless explicitly configured.- 151-184: The
doAuthenticateClientSecretmethod demonstrates a comprehensive approach to handling client secret authentication, whether through basic or post methods. The method includes detailed error handling and validation against the client's configured authentication method. Consider adding more comments to explain the logic behind the points system used for selecting the appropriate JWK in complex scenarios.- 187-189: Defining
ErrClientSecretNotRegisteredas a variable outside of any method is a good practice for error handling, allowing for consistent error checking across the codebase. This approach facilitates easier maintenance and readability.- 191-219: The
CompareClientSecretfunction is crucial for comparing the provided client secret against the registered one. The handling of rotated secrets is a thoughtful addition, enhancing security by accommodating secret rotation policies. Ensure that the error messages are clear and provide actionable advice for resolving potential issues.- 227-270: The
doAuthenticateAssertionmethod handles client assertion authentication, specifically for JWT Bearer tokens. This method's implementation is detailed, with thorough error handling and validation of JWT claims. It's important to ensure that the JWT parsing and validation logic is secure and aligns with best practices to prevent potential vulnerabilities.- 272-321: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearermethod is responsible for parsing and validating the JWT bearer assertion. The method demonstrates a comprehensive approach to JWT validation, including audience, expiration, and issued-at checks. Consider reviewing the error handling to ensure that it provides enough context for debugging and aligns with security best practices.- 323-337: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerParseErrormethod provides a centralized way to handle parsing errors from JWT bearer assertions. This method improves maintainability by consolidating error handling logic. Ensure that the error messages are informative and guide the client developer towards resolving the issue.- 340-361: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeymethod demonstrates a clear strategy for selecting the appropriate key for JWT verification based on the client's configured authentication method and the token's signing algorithm. This method's implementation is a good example of applying the strategy pattern to handle varying requirements dynamically.- 363-378: The handling of the
client_secret_jwtmethod indoAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyClientSecretJWTis straightforward and aligns with the OAuth 2.0 specifications. Ensure that the secret comparison is secure against timing attacks by using constant-time comparison functions where applicable.- 382-393: The
doAuthenticateAssertionParseAssertionJWTBearerFindKeyPrivateKeyJWTmethod correctly handles finding the public key for JWT verification when using private key JWT authentication. This method's implementation is comprehensive, covering various RSA, PS, and ES signing algorithms. Ensure that the key retrieval process is efficient and caches keys where appropriate to reduce latency and load on the JWKS endpoint.- 404-434: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [397-442]
The
getClientCredentialsSecretBasicfunction correctly extracts and decodes client credentials from the HTTP Authorization header using the Basic scheme. The detailed error handling and validation of the decoded credentials enhance security and usability. Consider adding more inline comments to explain the rationale behind specific checks and validations for future maintainability.
- 445-449: The
getClientCredentialsSecretPostfunction is a concise and effective way to retrieve client credentials from form-encoded POST data. This function complements thegetClientCredentialsSecretBasicfunction, covering another common scenario for client authentication in OAuth 2.0.- 451-456: The
getJWTHeaderKIDAlgfunction efficiently extracts thekidandalgvalues from a JWT header. This utility function is crucial for selecting the appropriate key for JWT verification. Its straightforward implementation enhances code readability and reuse.- 487-554: The
findPublicKeyByKIDfunction demonstrates a comprehensive approach to finding a public key in a JWK set based on thekid,alg, anduseparameters. The use of a scoring system to select the best match when an exact match is not found is an interesting approach. Ensure that this scoring system is well-documented to aid future maintainability and understanding of the selection logic.- 556-560: The
PrivateKeyinterface definition is a good practice, providing a clear contract for what constitutes a private key within the context of this authentication strategy. This interface enhances code readability and type safety.- 562-565: The
getClientCredentialsClientAssertionfunction correctly extracts client assertion credentials from form-encoded POST data. This function is essential for handling client assertion-based authentication scenarios. Ensure that the validation of the extracted credentials is thorough to prevent potential security issues.- 568-588: The
getClientCredentialsClientIDValidfunction effectively validates the client ID obtained from either POST data or the HTTP Authorization header. The inclusion of validation against theVSCHARregex specification enhances security by ensuring that the client ID conforms to expected character sets. Consider adding more inline comments to explain the validation logic for future maintainability.- 590-647: The legacy strategy and helper methods (
ClientAuthenticationLegacyStrategy,findClientPublicJWK,AuthenticateClient,GetDefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy,DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy) provide backward compatibility and flexibility in configuring the client authentication strategy. These methods demonstrate thoughtful design in accommodating different authentication needs and legacy systems. Ensure that the documentation is clear on when and how to use these methods versus the new authentication strategy.- 649-683: The
findPublicKeyfunction is a utility method for finding a public key in a JWK set, specifically tailored for JWT verification. This function's implementation is similar tofindPublicKeyByKIDbut tailored for a different context. Ensure that the logic for selecting the appropriate key is secure and efficient, considering potential performance implications of iterating over keys.client_authentication_test.go (1)
- 53-53: The line introduces a complex secret for testing purposes. While it's good to test with complex secrets, ensure that the secret covers a broad range of special characters to thoroughly test the handling of URL encoding and other potential issues in secret processing.
Consider adding more special characters to the
complexSecretRawvariable to ensure comprehensive testing of secret handling logic.
Comment on lines
50
to
335
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseBasicValueIsNotValid", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: http.Header{consts.HeaderAuthorization: {prefixSchemeBasic + base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte("foo"))}}}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials from the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. The basic scheme value was not separated by a colon.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseSchemeIsNotValid", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: http.Header{consts.HeaderAuthorization: {"NotBasic " + base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte("foo:bar"))}}}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials from the HTTP authorization header had an unknown scheme. The scheme 'NotBasic' is not known for client authentication.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseHeaderIsNotEncoded", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: http.Header{consts.HeaderAuthorization: {prefixSchemeBasic + "foo:bar"}}}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials from the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Error occurred performing a base64 decode: illegal base64 data at input byte 3.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseAuthorizationHeaderIsNotValid", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: http.Header{consts.HeaderAuthorization: {"Basic" + base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte("foo:bar"))}}}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials from the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. The header value is either missing a scheme, value, or the separator between them.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseNonVSCHARClientID", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: clientBasicAuthHeader("\x19foo", "bar")}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client id in the HTTP request had an invalid character.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseNonVSCHARClientSecret", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: clientBasicAuthHeader("foo", "\x19bar")}, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data. The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client secret in the HTTP request had an invalid character.", | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| d: "should fail because client is confidential and id does not exist in header", | ||
| client: &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "bar", Secret: barSecret}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"}, | ||
| form: url.Values{}, | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseClientIsConfidentialAndIdDoesNotExistInHeader", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "bar", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "client_secret_basic"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{}, | ||
| r: &http.Request{Header: http.Header{consts.HeaderAuthorization: {prefixSchemeBasic + base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte("foo:bar"))}}}, | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidClient, | ||
| err: "Client authentication failed (e.g., unknown client, no client authentication included, or unsupported authentication method). Could not find the requested resource(s).", | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| d: "should fail because client_assertion but client_assertion is missing", | ||
| client: &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", Secret: barSecret}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"}, | ||
| form: url.Values{"client_id": []string{"foo"}, "client_assertion_type": []string{consts.ClientAssertionTypeJWTBearer}}, | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseClientAssertionButClientAssertionIsMissing", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{"client_id": []string{"foo"}, "client_assertion_type": []string{consts.ClientAssertionTypeJWTBearer}}, | ||
| r: new(http.Request), | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. The client_assertion request parameter must be set when using client_assertion_type of 'urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer'.", | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| d: "should fail because client_assertion_type is unknown", | ||
| client: &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", Secret: barSecret}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"}, | ||
| form: url.Values{"client_id": []string{"foo"}, "client_assertion_type": []string{"foobar"}}, | ||
| name: "ShouldFailBecauseClientAssertionTypeIsUnknown", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "foo", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{"client_id": []string{"foo"}, "client_assertion_type": []string{"foobar"}}, | ||
| r: new(http.Request), | ||
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | ||
| err: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. Unknown client_assertion_type 'foobar'.", | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| d: "should pass with proper RSA assertion when JWKs are set within the client and client_id is not set in the request", | ||
| client: &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "bar", Secret: barSecret}, JSONWebKeys: rsaJwks, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"}, | ||
| form: url.Values{"client_assertion": {mustGenerateRSAAssertion(t, jwt.MapClaims{ | ||
| name: "ShouldPassWithProperRSAAssertionWhenJWKsAreSetWithinTheClientAndClientIdIsNotSetInTheRequest", | ||
| client: func(ts *httptest.Server) Client { | ||
| return &DefaultOpenIDConnectClient{DefaultClient: &DefaultClient{ID: "bar", ClientSecret: testClientSecretBar}, JSONWebKeys: rsaJwks, TokenEndpointAuthMethod: "private_key_jwt"} | ||
| }, form: url.Values{"client_assertion": {mustGenerateRSAAssertion(t, jwt.MapClaims{ | ||
| consts.ClaimSubject: "bar", | ||
| consts.ClaimExpirationTime: time.Now().Add(time.Hour).Unix(), | ||
| consts.ClaimIssuer: "bar", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [55-838]
The test cases are well-structured and cover a wide range of scenarios, which is excellent for ensuring the robustness of the client authentication logic. However, there are a few areas for potential improvement based on the existing comments and the observed changes:
-
Duplication in Client Setup: The setup for
DefaultOpenIDConnectClientinstances is repeated across multiple test cases. Consider refactoring this setup into a helper function to reduce duplication and improve maintainability. -
Error Handling and Assertions: The use of
requireandassertis appropriate, but ensure that error messages in assertions are descriptive and helpful for debugging. It's also important to consistently handle expected errors and validate them against specific error types or messages to ensure that the tests are accurately capturing the intended failure modes. -
Complex Secret Handling: The handling of complex secrets is tested, which is great. Ensure that these tests cover all relevant edge cases, especially given the special characters involved. It might be beneficial to include more variations of complex secrets to test different encoding and decoding scenarios.
-
Mocking External Dependencies: The tests depend on external services like
httptest.Server. While this is a common practice in testing HTTP clients, ensure that these dependencies are mocked or stubbed where possible to reduce flakiness and improve test speed. Additionally, consider isolating external dependency setup to reduce repetition across test cases. -
Test Coverage for New Authentication Policies: Given the PR's focus on enhancing authentication policies, ensure that the test coverage is sufficient for these new policies, particularly around the handling of multiple authentication methods and the new error conditions introduced. It's important to validate that the system behaves as expected under various configurations and that all new logic paths are adequately tested.
-
JWT Assertion Generation: The functions
mustGenerateRSAAssertion,mustGenerateECDSAAssertion,mustGenerateHSAssertion, andmustGenerateNoneAssertionare used to generate JWT assertions for testing. Ensure that these functions accurately reflect the JWT generation logic used in the application to ensure that the tests are valid representations of real-world usage.
Consider refactoring to reduce duplication, ensure comprehensive edge case coverage, and improve the clarity of error messages in assertions. Additionally, verify that the test coverage adequately addresses the new authentication policies and error conditions introduced in this PR.
Comment on lines
227
to
232
| JWTSecuredAuthorizeResponseModeLifespanProvider | ||
| MessageCatalogProvider | ||
| SendDebugMessagesToClientsProvider | ||
| AuthorizationServerIdentificationIssuerProvider | ||
| AuthorizationServerIssuerIdentificationProvider | ||
| UseLegacyErrorFormatProvider | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [184-184]
Directly writing data to http.ResponseWriter without HTML escaping can introduce cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. Consider using the html/template package to safely render data to the response writer, ensuring that any dynamic content is properly escaped.
- _, _ = rw.Write(data)
+ tmpl := template.Must(template.New("error").Parse(`{{.}}`))
+ _ = tmpl.Execute(rw, data)Ensure the template string is adjusted to match the actual data structure being written.
Comment on lines
+30
to
+39
| config := &Config{} | ||
| provider := &Fosite{Store: store, Config: config} | ||
| for k, c := range []struct { | ||
| header http.Header | ||
| form url.Values | ||
| mock func() | ||
| method string | ||
| expectErr error | ||
| expect *AccessRequest | ||
| handlers RevocationHandlers | ||
| header http.Header | ||
| form url.Values | ||
| mock func() | ||
| method string | ||
| expectErr error | ||
| expectStrErr string | ||
| expect *AccessRequest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test cases are well-structured, with clear separation of setup, mock expectations, and assertions. However, consider adding comments or using descriptive variable names to explain the purpose of each test case, especially when dealing with complex scenarios or specific edge cases. This will improve the readability and maintainability of the tests.
+ // Test case: Invalid HTTP method (GET instead of POST)
{
header: http.Header{},
expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest,
expectStrErr: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. HTTP method is 'GET' but expected 'POST'.",
method: "GET",
mock: func() {},
},Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
Suggested change
| config := &Config{} | |
| provider := &Fosite{Store: store, Config: config} | |
| for k, c := range []struct { | |
| header http.Header | |
| form url.Values | |
| mock func() | |
| method string | |
| expectErr error | |
| expect *AccessRequest | |
| handlers RevocationHandlers | |
| header http.Header | |
| form url.Values | |
| mock func() | |
| method string | |
| expectErr error | |
| expectStrErr string | |
| expect *AccessRequest | |
| config := &Config{} | |
| provider := &Fosite{Store: store, Config: config} | |
| for k, c := range []struct { | |
| header http.Header | |
| form url.Values | |
| mock func() | |
| method string | |
| expectErr error | |
| expectStrErr string | |
| expect *AccessRequest | |
| // Test case: Invalid HTTP method (GET instead of POST) | |
| { | |
| header: http.Header{}, | |
| expectErr: ErrInvalidRequest, | |
| expectStrErr: "The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value, includes a parameter more than once, or is otherwise malformed. HTTP method is 'GET' but expected 'POST'.", | |
| method: "GET", | |
| mock: func() {}, | |
| }, |
Comment on lines
+113
to
+140
| ID: "my-client", | ||
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$6i/O2OM9CcEVTRLq9uFDtOze4AtISH79iYkZeEUsos4WzWtCnJ52y`), // = "foobar" | ||
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | ||
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | ||
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | ||
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials", "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange"}, | ||
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | ||
| }, | ||
| "custom-lifespan-client": &oauth2.DefaultClientWithCustomTokenLifespans{ | ||
| DefaultClient: &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | ||
| ID: "custom-lifespan-client", | ||
| Secret: []byte(`$2a$10$IxMdI6d.LIRZPpSfEwNoeu4rY3FhDREsxFJXikcgdRRAStxUlsuEO`), // = "foobar" | ||
| RotatedSecrets: [][]byte{[]byte(`$2y$10$X51gLxUQJ.hGw1epgHTE5u0bt64xM0COU7K9iAp.OFg8p2pUd.1zC `)}, // = "foobaz", | ||
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | ||
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | ||
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | ||
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | ||
| ID: "custom-lifespan-client", | ||
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$6i/O2OM9CcEVTRLq9uFDtOze4AtISH79iYkZeEUsos4WzWtCnJ52y`), // = "foobar" | ||
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | ||
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | ||
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | ||
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | ||
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | ||
| }, | ||
| TokenLifespans: &internal.TestLifespans, | ||
| }, | ||
| "encoded:client": &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | ||
| ID: "encoded:client", | ||
| Secret: []byte(`$2a$10$A7M8b65dSSKGHF0H2sNkn.9Z0hT8U1Nv6OWPV3teUUaczXkVkxuDS`), // = "encoded&password" | ||
| RotatedSecrets: nil, | ||
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | ||
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | ||
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | ||
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | ||
| ID: "encoded:client", | ||
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$8FzF6Ig9KHbTD8Q4VLOb5eIH8vbg.Lz3TXb2vAkDeP/XEDHmqCHGi`), // = "encoded&password" | ||
| RotatedClientSecrets: nil, | ||
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | ||
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | ||
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | ||
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes to the oauth2.DefaultClient structure, including the replacement of Secret with ClientSecret, RotatedSecrets with RotatedClientSecrets, and adjustments to related fields like ID, RedirectURIs, ResponseTypes, GrantTypes, and Scopes, are consistent with the PR's objectives to enhance security in client authentication. However, the direct inclusion of bcrypt hashes in the code (lines 114, 115, 124, 125, 135) raises concerns about the management of sensitive information. While these may be placeholders for demonstration, it's crucial to ensure that real secrets are not hardcoded and are instead securely managed, possibly through environment variables or a secure secret management service. This approach would enhance security and adhere to best practices for sensitive information management.
- ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$6i/O2OM9CcEVTRLq9uFDtOze4AtISH79iYkZeEUsos4WzWtCnJ52y`),
+ ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(getClientSecretFromEnv("MY_CLIENT_SECRET")),Consider implementing a secure method for managing secrets, such as retrieving them from environment variables or a secret management service, to avoid hardcoding sensitive information.
Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
Suggested change
| ID: "my-client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$6i/O2OM9CcEVTRLq9uFDtOze4AtISH79iYkZeEUsos4WzWtCnJ52y`), // = "foobar" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials", "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| }, | |
| "custom-lifespan-client": &oauth2.DefaultClientWithCustomTokenLifespans{ | |
| DefaultClient: &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | |
| ID: "custom-lifespan-client", | |
| Secret: []byte(`$2a$10$IxMdI6d.LIRZPpSfEwNoeu4rY3FhDREsxFJXikcgdRRAStxUlsuEO`), // = "foobar" | |
| RotatedSecrets: [][]byte{[]byte(`$2y$10$X51gLxUQJ.hGw1epgHTE5u0bt64xM0COU7K9iAp.OFg8p2pUd.1zC `)}, // = "foobaz", | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| ID: "custom-lifespan-client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$6i/O2OM9CcEVTRLq9uFDtOze4AtISH79iYkZeEUsos4WzWtCnJ52y`), // = "foobar" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| }, | |
| TokenLifespans: &internal.TestLifespans, | |
| }, | |
| "encoded:client": &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | |
| ID: "encoded:client", | |
| Secret: []byte(`$2a$10$A7M8b65dSSKGHF0H2sNkn.9Z0hT8U1Nv6OWPV3teUUaczXkVkxuDS`), // = "encoded&password" | |
| RotatedSecrets: nil, | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| ID: "encoded:client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$8FzF6Ig9KHbTD8Q4VLOb5eIH8vbg.Lz3TXb2vAkDeP/XEDHmqCHGi`), // = "encoded&password" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: nil, | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| ID: "my-client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(getClientSecretFromEnv("MY_CLIENT_SECRET")), // = "foobar" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials", "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| }, | |
| "custom-lifespan-client": &oauth2.DefaultClientWithCustomTokenLifespans{ | |
| DefaultClient: &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | |
| ID: "custom-lifespan-client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(getClientSecretFromEnv("MY_CLIENT_SECRET")), // = "foobar" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: []oauth2.ClientSecret{oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$4X4/mCFdQ9tmfjSBBk6RNOhg0MtKE0ql7BPyMHDuiuq7YeY6wGlh.`)}, // = "foobaz" | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, | |
| }, | |
| TokenLifespans: &internal.TestLifespans, | |
| }, | |
| "encoded:client": &oauth2.DefaultClient{ | |
| ID: "encoded:client", | |
| ClientSecret: oauth2.NewBCryptClientSecret(`$2a$04$8FzF6Ig9KHbTD8Q4VLOb5eIH8vbg.Lz3TXb2vAkDeP/XEDHmqCHGi`), // = "encoded&password" | |
| RotatedClientSecrets: nil, | |
| RedirectURIs: []string{"http://localhost:3846/callback"}, | |
| ResponseTypes: []string{"id_token", "code", "token", "id_token token", "code id_token", "code token", "code id_token token"}, | |
| GrantTypes: []string{"implicit", "refresh_token", "authorization_code", "password", "client_credentials"}, | |
| Scopes: []string{"oauth2", consts.ScopeOpenID, "photos", consts.ScopeOffline}, |
Comment on lines
+44
to
+73
| func (s *DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy) AuthenticateClient(ctx context.Context, r *http.Request, form url.Values) (client Client, method string, err error) { | ||
| var ( | ||
| id, secret string | ||
|
|
||
| if key, err := findPublicKey(t, keys, expectsRSAKey); err == nil { | ||
| return key, nil | ||
| } | ||
| idBasic, secretBasic string | ||
|
|
||
| keys, err = f.Config.GetJWKSFetcherStrategy(ctx).Resolve(ctx, location, true) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| assertionType, assertion string | ||
|
|
||
| return findPublicKey(t, keys, expectsRSAKey) | ||
| hasPost, hasBasic, hasAssertion bool | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| idBasic, secretBasic, hasBasic, err = getClientCredentialsSecretBasic(r) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, "", errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidRequest.WithHint("The client credentials in the HTTP authorization header could not be parsed. Either the scheme was missing, the scheme was invalid, or the value had malformed data.").WithWrap(err).WithDebugError(err)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return nil, errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidClient.WithHint("The OAuth 2.0 Client has no JSON Web Keys set registered, but they are needed to complete the request.")) | ||
| } | ||
| id, secret, hasPost = s.getClientCredentialsSecretPost(form) | ||
| assertion, assertionType, hasAssertion = getClientCredentialsClientAssertion(form) | ||
|
|
||
| // AuthenticateClient authenticates client requests using the configured strategy | ||
| // `oauth2.ClientAuthenticationStrategy`, if nil it uses `Fosite.DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy` | ||
| func (f *Fosite) AuthenticateClient(ctx context.Context, r *http.Request, form url.Values) (Client, error) { | ||
| if s := f.Config.GetClientAuthenticationStrategy(ctx); s != nil { | ||
| return s(ctx, r, form) | ||
| if id, err = getClientCredentialsClientIDValid(id, idBasic, hasAssertion); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, "", err | ||
| } | ||
| return f.DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy(ctx, r, form) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy provides the fosite's default client authentication strategy, | ||
| // HTTP Basic Authentication and JWT Bearer | ||
| // | ||
| // TODO: Refactor time permitting. | ||
| // | ||
| //nolint:gocyclo | ||
| func (f *Fosite) DefaultClientAuthenticationStrategy(ctx context.Context, r *http.Request, form url.Values) (Client, error) { | ||
| if assertionType := form.Get(consts.FormParameterClientAssertionType); assertionType == consts.ClientAssertionTypeJWTBearer { | ||
| assertion := form.Get(consts.FormParameterClientAssertion) | ||
| if len(assertion) == 0 { | ||
| return nil, errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidRequest.WithHintf("The client_assertion request parameter must be set when using client_assertion_type of '%s'.", consts.ClientAssertionTypeJWTBearer)) | ||
| } | ||
| // Allow simplification of client authentication. | ||
| if !hasPost && hasBasic { | ||
| secret = secretBasic | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| var clientID string | ||
| var client Client | ||
| return s.authenticate(ctx, id, secret, assertion, assertionType, hasBasic, hasPost, hasAssertion) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The AuthenticateClient method orchestrates the client authentication process by delegating to more specific methods based on the authentication scenario. However, its complexity could be reduced for better readability and maintainability. Consider refactoring to further simplify the method, possibly by extracting parts of the logic into separate, more focused methods.
Comment on lines
+458
to
+485
| // FindClientPublicJWK takes a OpenIDConnectClient and a kid, alg, and use to resolve a Public JWK for the client. | ||
| func FindClientPublicJWK(ctx context.Context, provider JWKSFetcherStrategyProvider, client OpenIDConnectClient, kid, alg, use string) (key any, err error) { | ||
| if set := client.GetJSONWebKeys(); set != nil { | ||
| return findPublicKeyByKID(kid, alg, use, set) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if len(id) != 0 && !RegexSpecificationVSCHAR.MatchString(id) { | ||
| return "", "", errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidRequest.WithHint("The client id in the HTTP request had an invalid character.")) | ||
| strategy := provider.GetJWKSFetcherStrategy(ctx) | ||
|
|
||
| var keys *jose.JSONWebKeySet | ||
|
|
||
| if location := client.GetJSONWebKeysURI(); len(location) > 0 { | ||
| if keys, err = strategy.Resolve(ctx, location, false); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if key, err = findPublicKeyByKID(kid, alg, use, keys); err == nil { | ||
| return key, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if keys, err = strategy.Resolve(ctx, location, true); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return findPublicKeyByKID(kid, alg, use, keys) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if len(secret) != 0 && !RegexSpecificationVSCHAR.MatchString(secret) { | ||
| return "", "", errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidRequest.WithHint("The client secret in the HTTP request had an invalid character.")) | ||
| return nil, errorsx.WithStack(ErrInvalidClient.WithHint("The OAuth 2.0 Client has no JSON Web Keys set registered, but they are needed to complete the request.")) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The FindClientPublicJWK function is crucial for retrieving and validating public JWKs. The error handling and fallback mechanism to refresh the keys if not found initially are well thought out. However, the method's complexity could be slightly reduced by breaking it down further.
Consider refactoring to simplify the method, possibly by extracting parts of the logic into separate, more focused methods.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reworks client authentication preventing situations where authentication will pass when it shouldn't.
Summary by CodeRabbit