HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

fcvarela

37 karma · joined February 16, 2015

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/fcvarela; my proof: https://keybase.io/fcvarela/sigs/wWdgkfz_dRpL9Lmmf5YzExO_r4YdT0fZ7ULRIjrOVlY ]
submissionscomments
fcvarela··on Secondhand EVs Are Starting to Look Like a Bargain
ID.5 listed as least depreciating. Mine was 55k new less than a year ago and it’s worth 30k. Definitely not the 10% mentioned in the article.
fcvarela··on “Huh” exists in all human languages, according to research (2019)
This is like saying 'yes' exists in all languages because there's an equivalent in every language... It's... a bit clikbaity
fcvarela··on How to sleep at night having a cloud service: common architecture do's
Nice article, may I ask what tools you used to produce the illustrations?
fcvarela··on Synology replacing user certificates with their own revoked one
FWIW i've just verified this on a DS1019+ running the latest DSM. My certificate disappeared after rebooting and the default synology one (which I had deleted) reappeared.
fcvarela··on Apple’s Latest Macs Have a Serious Audio Glitching Bug
As frustrated with Apple as the next person, but I have never experienced this using a bunch of interfaces and devices with their own clock source...
fcvarela··on JSON Web Tokens should be avoided
The spec doesn't govern what applications can and cannot accept, it governs what contents are valid in tokens. 'None' is valid, that means my parser library will accept it, it doesn't mean my application must accept the token as valid.

Example: The fact that my service has an http stack which must parse a cookie header doesn't mean my app must accept its contents as valid. There's a lot of confusion on this thread about which components should/must do what things.

fcvarela··on JSON Web Tokens should be avoided
I don't think the spec meant to read that you must allow the client to be able to forge tokens by accepting tokens issued by it without an algo or signature.

If you issue tokens with none, then you will have to accept them when clients send them back. This is obviously a very bad idea, but that's all th spec says. If the issuer chooses to be insecure, that is a valid choice.

If you issue tokens with a specific algo, and clients send them back with a different or none header, you know they have been forged.

The spec allows issuers to decide whether to use none, it doesn't say you must trust none tokens if you know you didn't issue them.

fcvarela··on JSON Web Tokens should be avoided
"Send a header that specifies the "none" algorithm be used"

Why would an issuer ever let a client decide what algo to use?

"Send a header that specifies the "HS256" algorithm when the application normally signs messages with an RSA public key."

Again, under what circumstances would a header be used by the client to ask for a specific implementation?

What about encrypted client side cookies - would you let the client "send a header" to specify which key to use???

The only problems you highlighted are serious input validation issues and a naive, broken trust model.