chore(deps): update dependency jsonwebtoken to 9.0.0 [security] - autoclosed

[renovate[bot]]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change
jsonwebtoken	8.5.1 -> 9.0.0

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2022-23541

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

CVE-2022-23539

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

Key type	algorithm
ec	ES256, ES384, ES512
rsa	RS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512
rsa-pss	PS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

alg	Curve
ES256	prime256v1
ES384	secp384r1
ES512	secp521r1

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

CVE-2022-23540

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

• a token with no signature is received
• no algorithms are specified
• a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" in timezone Etc/UTC, Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• [ ] If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate. View repository job log here.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (a305a3c) 99.42% compared to head (6ec97c3) 99.42%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #507 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 99.42% 99.42% ======================================= Files 36 36 Lines 2257 2257 Branches 192 192 ======================================= Hits 2244 2244 Misses 11 11 Partials 2 2 ``` Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ScaleLeap). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ScaleLeap)

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.