Fix validation issue in isJWT function by Prathamesh061 · Pull Request #2217 · validatorjs/validator.js

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T16:59:50Z

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T17:50:33Z

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Removed trailing spaces

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-13T18:26:15Z

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

WikiRik · 2023-04-13T19:19:15Z

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

it('should validate JWT tokens',()=>{
test({
validator: 'isJWT',
valid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',// No signature
],
invalid: [
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
'$Zs.ewu.su84',
'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
],
error: [
[],
{},
null,
undefined,
],
});
});

Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

codecov · 2023-04-14T06:00:07Z

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2217 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.95% 99.95% =======================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2405 2405 Branches 604 604 =======================================
Hits 2404 2404 Partials 1 1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:01:12Z

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

WikiRik

One final comment but then it looks good to me

WikiRik · 2023-04-14T06:07:31Z

+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NSIsIm5hbWUiOiJKb2huIERvZSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNjY1Mzg3Mn0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE2NjUzODcyLCJleHAiOjE2MTY2NTM4ODJ9.a1jLRQkO5TV5y5ERcaPAiM9Xm2gBdRjKrrCpHkGr_8M',
 '$Zs.ewu.su84',
 'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
+ 'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ',


I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

You are right

Removed redundant test in isJWT

Prathamesh061 · 2023-04-14T06:52:19Z

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

pano9000 · 2023-04-23T07:39:28Z

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

chrislemus · 2023-04-23T15:56:14Z

 const len = dotSplit.length;

- if (len > 3 || len < 2) {
+ if (len !== 3) {


consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

chrislemus

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

profnandaa

LGTM, thanks for the fix.

Update isJWT.js
2ef673c
fix: Ensure isJWT returns false for 2 part invalid JWT tokens Previously, the isJWT function would return true for 2 part invalid JWT tokens. This has been fixed by updating the isJWT function to return false for such tokens.

WikiRik reviewed Apr 13, 2023
View reviewed changes

Prathamesh061 requested a review from WikiRik April 13, 2023 17:46

Prathamesh061 added 2 commits April 13, 2023 23:42

Update validators.test.js
19aefc9
Added test case for validating JSON web tokens (JWT)

Update validators.test.js
b349c38
Removed trailing spaces

Update validators.test.js
ba4041e
Refactor tests in isjwt and remove redundant test case

WikiRik reviewed Apr 14, 2023
View reviewed changes

Update validators.test.js
8d050ed
Removed redundant test in isJWT

WikiRik approved these changes Apr 14, 2023
View reviewed changes

pano9000 approved these changes Apr 17, 2023
View reviewed changes

pano9000 mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2023
isJWT function returning true for invalid JWT tokens with 2 parts #2216
Closed

Prathamesh061 requested a review from pano9000 April 17, 2023 10:45

pano9000 approved these changes Apr 23, 2023
View reviewed changes

chrislemus reviewed Apr 23, 2023
View reviewed changes

chrislemus approved these changes Apr 23, 2023
View reviewed changes

rubiin approved these changes Apr 24, 2023
View reviewed changes

rubiin requested a review from profnandaa June 12, 2023 04:57

profnandaa approved these changes Jun 26, 2023
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit 3507d27 into validatorjs:masterJun 26, 2023

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2023
maintenance: release 2308 prep - v13.11.0 #2252
Closed

rntvicente mentioned this pull request May 24, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.5.2 to 13.11.0 rntvicente/ts-clean-architecture#25
Open

sahilpawar58 mentioned this pull request May 25, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.6.0 to 13.11.0 sahilpawar58/Civil-Project#47
Open

ChinmoyHembram mentioned this pull request May 25, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.7.0 to 13.11.0 ChinmoyHembram/Cocktail-recipel-site#260
Open

This was referenced Jul 19, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.5.2 to 13.12.0 DefenderK/nodejs-goof#119
Closed
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.5.2 to 13.12.0 DefenderK/nodejs-goof#121
Closed
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.5.2 to 13.12.0 DefenderK/nodejs-goof#123
Closed

vky5 mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.11.0 to 13.12.0 vky5/onspot#6
Closed

Playgirlkaybraz11 mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.11.0 to 13.12.0 Playgirlkaybraz11/lock#5
Open

luizhp mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.0.0 to 13.12.0 luizhp/template-api-tdd#8
Open

This was referenced Aug 30, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.7.0 to 13.12.0 TheJ-Erk400/passbolt_browser_extension#11
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.7.0 to 13.12.0 TheJ-Erk400/passbolt_cli2#4
Open

TheJ-Erk400 mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: , jssha, locutus, openpgp, papaparse, webextension-polyfill, passbolt-styleguide, validator TheJ-Erk400/passbolt_browser_extension#12
Open

sumandas0 mentioned this pull request Sep 8, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: lodash, cassandra-driver, validator sumandas0/Cassandra_node#32
Open

TheJ-Erk400 mentioned this pull request Sep 8, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: jssha, validator TheJ-Erk400/passbolt_cli2#6
Open

Bastien-Durand mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: chalk, nodemon, validator Bastien-Durand/Node#68
Open

kaifkh20 mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: dotenv, express, pg, validator, sequelize kaifkh20/community-app#24
Merged

This was referenced Sep 10, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#37
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#38
Open

harish845 mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, dotenv, mongoose, nodemon, validator harish845/Secure-Software-Development-Project#2
Open

MohammadGhajari mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#40
Open

harish845 mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, dotenv, mongoose, nodemon, validator harish845/Secure-Software-Development-Project#3
Open

vky5 mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: express-rate-limit, mongoose, nodemailer, validator vky5/onspot#14
Closed

amay0808 mentioned this pull request Sep 16, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: jsonwebtoken, validator, winston amay0808/se_project_express#9
Open

IT21269134 mentioned this pull request Sep 17, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: dotenv, nodemon, validator IT21269134/Secure_Software_Development_Project---SightSense#2
Open

MohammadGhajari mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, iso-639-1, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#41
Open

ch4mi2 mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: bcrypt, bwip-js, dotenv, jsonwebtoken, moment, mongoose, nodemon, validator ch4mi2/Laboratory-Information-Management-System#5
Closed

This was referenced Sep 19, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, iso-639-1, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#42
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade: axios, iso-639-1, react-router-dom, styled-components, swiper, validator MohammadGhajari/information-security#43
Open

pasanchamikara99 mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.11.0 to 13.12.0 pasanchamikara99/E-commerceWeb#18
Open

KOTTAGENVH mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.7.0 to 13.12.0 anjana-madushan/E-COMMERCE-WEB-APP-ITP-PROJ-#11
Open

DefenderK mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade validator from 13.5.2 to 13.12.0 DefenderK/nodejs-goof#132
Closed

fossabotBot mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Bump validator from 13.7.0 to 13.15.20 in /ui UchihaCortez/conductor#6
Closed

Kartikeya-guthub mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026
BUG(isJWT): validate decoded header and payload as JSON objects #2677
Open
4 tasks