More flexible OIDC key support#5912
Closed
McTom234 wants to merge 1 commit intoBookStackApp:developmentfrom
Closed
More flexible OIDC key support#5912McTom234 wants to merge 1 commit intoBookStackApp:developmentfrom
McTom234 wants to merge 1 commit intoBookStackApp:developmentfrom
Conversation
Member
|
Marking as blocked since this would really await a second algorithm to support, pending qualification as per my comment here: #5390 (comment) |
2 tasks
Member
|
BookStack is now managed on Codeberg. As part of this change, we're closing all existing GitHub issues and pull requests. Any further discussion for this will now be done on Codeberg. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The goal of this PR is to allow more key algorithms for OIDC signing keys.
The concerns regarding such implementation in #5390 were considered. I try to address them by allowing a flexible, extensible, and somewhat maintainable approach, which I gratefully take feedback on and am willing to improve by the feedback provided.
Therefore, the issue with this PR is not the few lines of code changed but the architecture of how more key algorithms could be supported. For presentation reasons, I added the RS512 algorithm, which I had done before.
If the suggested approach would be considered by the maintainers, I needed some support to extend and test this with more common algorithms like ES256 as described in the issue mentioned above.
Besides that, the test suits would probably need at least a test case per key algorithm to confirm that the implementations are working, which is currently a ToDo.